Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mikel

Another Evolution Question

Recommended Posts

I asked him in his view, exactly what he will accept as being a transitional and he said "It isn't about my view. Read the definition of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc. and see what you think are similar." I also told him all individuals of all species ever are or were transitional and he doesn't agree. He says "It's kind of like me saying that practically everybody agrees that 8 x 9 = 72 and you getting defensive and questioning the fact that I'm speaking for practically everybody. This is not destoying evolutionary theory (yeah, it still is a theory which many scientists are finding to be more intriguing than accurate) it is just stating a known fact."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked him in his view, exactly what he will accept as being a transitional and he said "It isn't about my view. Read the definition of kingdom, phylum, class, order, etc. and see what you think are similar."

 

Reference sayonara (props for predicting it sayo).

 

He'll try and tell you that it's your job as the proponent of evolution to provide that information - don't let him, because he has to demonstrate he understands what he is arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution. I mean check out his latest post: http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59146&perpage=20&pagenumber=5. His name is comanderofchaos so you can identify his post. At first in his latest post he is saying i'm on a roll and that starts saying shit like "Until you can show that you have any knowledge of the subject I cannot have a level conversation with you. It turns into me giving you a lesson on evolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That dumbass creationist is pissing me off. With every statement now, he's basically implying i'm a dumbass about evolution. The last thing I want to do now is show him the questions I've been having to ask about evolution.

Seems to me that going off to find out about the subject from the people who know is nothing to be ashamed of when you're arguing with someone who doesn't even know how rocks work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, no using those tags outside the general discussion area.

 

You should not use the bubble tag in the science threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've created a MONSTER.

 

/me goes to find a picture of Richard Dawkins for legitimate bubbling in the evo forum...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, no using those tags outside the general discussion area.
I'm thinking Albert would be a good person to tell people about relativity' date=' and so on.

 

Open to over-use and abuse though if people aren't careful with it in the sciencey forums.[/quote']

Ahem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it wasn't a good use of the tags...

 

And the link isn't working right now. I get an error. Is that happening for everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Myriad is kind of used as if it were stuck in the plural, without a preceding "a".

 

So where you might say "there was a swarm of soldier ants", using myriad you would say "there were myriad soldier ants".

 

It is a bizarre word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I told him, atinymonkey. I just made a reply. Oh yeah, genetics. I forgot to put that in my post. Is it my imagination or did I see your name browzing the forums? Assuming it wasn't my imagination and since you obviously can argue genetics better than me, you should make a post about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikel, invite him to the forum :)

 

That still is a good idea.

Bring him here, so that we can rip him appart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I told him, atinymonkey. I just made a reply. Oh yeah, genetics. I forgot to put that in my post. Is it my imagination or did I see your name browzing the forums? Assuming it wasn't my imagination and since you obviously can argue genetics better than me, you should make a post about it.

 

Yeh, I registered and browsed the forums. The massive sig's made the threads difficult to follow, and there was far too much flaming going on (in politics mostly) tbh. It made my sanity cry. I will pop on at some point, but not at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awsome, atinymonkey. Here's the latest in the debate from him.

I've stated (after study) that there is a gap in the fossil record between birds and reptiles (much more than this, but we will stay on this specific point for now). Do you want me to give you a bunch of quotes about this? "When Darwin's The Origin of Species was published in 1859, he conceded that 'the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory' was that the fossil record failed to back up his evolutionary hypothesis." Then there's the one by Michael Denton I pointed out earlier. (Sidenote: it seems as though you didn't read my reply to the "myriads" statement. I drew the parallel with legion because they both refer to a specific number. Myriad refers to ten thousand, so myriads would refer to tens of thousands.) (in reply to the question, "...archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?" Jonathan Wells stated, "No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile." Wells goes on to talk about how a branch of evolutionary theory, which is called "cladistics", had to move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work high level scientific debates anymore. In 1985, paleontologist, Larry Martin, said clearly that archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds. Here's a quote that you should find especially fascinating, not so much just what was said, but a combination of what was said and who said it:

"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown." - Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, ardent evolutionist.

Then there is Phillip Johnson who said, "If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation."

Now that I have given you some quotes will you please provide some evidence that fills the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles? That was the point of this entire conversation.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some corrections for his bizarre lecturing:

 

Myriad comes from the Ancient Greek murias, meaning "ten thousand". It lost its specificity during its transition through Latin. In modern English it means "inumerable", and there is no such word as "myriads".

 

What Darwin admitted observed about the fossil record in 1859 has no bearing whatsoever on the current state of play as regards the current fossil record.

 

Cladistics is a classification system based on the order of evolutionary branching rather than on present similarities and differences. It is not part of evolutionary theory - it is a part of the classification schema which makes use of evolutionary histories.

Saying that cladistics had to "move on to other fossils because the archaeopteryx argument just doesn't work" sounds very impressive but essentially it makes no odds whatsoever because cladistics does not particularly aim to "solve" the great mysteries of evolution, and when you're talking about reptiles turning into birds no one species is that important.

 

 

in reply to the question, "...archaeopteryx is a half-bird, half-reptile, right?" Jonathan Wells stated, "No, not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways - their breeding system, their bone structure, their lungs, their distribution of weight and muscles. It's a bird, that's clear - not part bird and part reptile."

Nobody in their right mind would claim that it was literally "half bird half reptile", so it's hardly surprising he would give the response he did.

 

This comes back to your opponent having no ****ing clue what a transitional species is - he's either setting you up to argue against a deliberately incorrect construct (which would be a fairly obvious strawman, and you could devastate his argument by calling him out on that), or he's really really ignorant.

In the case of Archaeopteryx, if it were indeed a transitional, describing it as "half bird half reptile" is layman's shorthand.

What it should be described as is a species that displays the significant attributes associated with avians, while also demonstrating evidence of a past connection to a non-avian lineage.

 

 

In 1985, paleontologist, Larry Martin, said clearly that archaeopteryx is not an ancestor of any modern birds; instead, it's a member of a totally extinct group of birds

Not relevant.

 

"Species X went extinct before Class Y radiated" is not the same as "Species X would never have led to species in Class Y".

 

 

"We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."

All that shows is that du Nouy had a good grasp of scientific theory - it does not in any way falsify the concept of transitionals.

 

You might want to point out that Pierre Lecomte du Nouy died in 1947, was a biophysicist, and was known mainly for his criticism of evolutionary biology. Also his reputation as a scientist was tarnished badly due to his woefully wrong estimate of the chances of randomly forming a two-thousand atom protein molecule (an argument creationists still use today, despite the fact that it is so very wrong.) Du Nouy was no "ardent evolutionist".

 

Of course, that is all just gravy. Fact is that he had no access to the ever-more advanced genetic and taxanomic tools that we have been developing for the past six decades since he died.

 

By the way, your guy appears to be ripping off his material from here (or possibly a similar site that has not gone under; these places all seem to feed off each other):

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:IORngdQUcsMJ:www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm+Pierre+Lecomte+du+Nouy

That may explain why it's mostly out of date and lacks any sign of independent thought or logical rounding.

 

 

If we are testing Darwinism rather than merely looking for a confirming example or two, then a single good candidate for ancestor status is not enough to save a theory that posits a worldwide history of continual evolutionary transformation.

 

Looks like that was ripped off from here: http://www.princeton.edu/~ccc/outline.html

I doubt the protagonist in this little drama knows what the significance or relevance is to be honest.

 

 

Now that I have given you some quotes will you please provide some evidence that fills the evolutionary gap between birds and reptiles? That was the point of this entire conversation.

Quotes? Quotes? Wtf good are quotes?

He hasn't shown any evidence he knows what he is arguing, that he has read the sources those quotes are taken from, that he understands their academic relevance, that he understands how evolutionary biology has adapted as a response to those conditions almost a hundred years ago, or that he even has any clue as to how taxanomic and evolutionary research works in the current era.

 

If he wants to refute the existence of transitionals he's going to have to do a lot better than quote people to whom he incorrectly ascribes authority or beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was awsome. Thank you so much. You are by far more educated in this subject and a better speaker than I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I'm neglecting this thread for some reason.

 

On a side note, I simply love it how creationists take quotes as a statement of fact from a book that was published over a century ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, they don't seem to want to get up to date. They would rather blindly follow creationism.

I can't wait to hear your argument on genetics, atinymonkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayanara^3 said bullshit. Does that mean i can say asshole? some people are assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Creationist arguments are the same ones they use EVERY TIME.

 

Pick any such thread at random from here and you'll probably get replies to the queries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, i'm back. I found a great source for what I thought would answer all my unanswered questions but It didn't with absolutely everything, so I have another question. I'm debating a new guy in some different forums who said that children were being taught outdated info on evolution in schools. I asked for an example and he gave me a paragraph on things i'm not too familiar with and what are most likely lies fed to him by the erronious icr which may be why i'm not familiar with them. Anyway, here's what he said:

I say they are outdated in schools because they still include false stuff like the horse trasitionals (due to randomness in the chest cavity they threw out the fact that they are transitionals and are now seen as subspecies) and they still teach coaclanth (spelling) (This was thrown out because in recent years it was found to be a deep sea fish and not anything like a trasitional form between amphibians and fish.) and they even teach the hoax neanderthals with the regular ones (I'm refering to the ape/man transitionals, not the stupid kids).

Are any of you familiar with anything he's talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say they are outdated in schools because they still include false stuff

 

He's partly right here. Most public schools avoid talking about that stuff in general or provide flawed and out of date info. My experience of introduction to evolution in High School Biology was a roughly 3 minute crash course.

 

due to randomness in the chest cavity they threw out the fact that they are transitionals and are now seen as subspecies

 

I don't think that the current horses are considered transitional. But there is fossil evidence of transitional horses.

 

the hoax neanderthals with the regular ones

What the crap is he talking about???

 

what are most likely lies fed to him by the erronious icr which may be why i'm not familiar with them.

 

You're talking about these guys: http://www.icr.org/ ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's partly right here. Most public schools avoid talking about that stuff in general or provide flawed and out of date info. My experience of introduction to evolution in High School Biology was a roughly 3 minute crash course.

I am aware they have had things like the "Nebraska Man" in textbooks in the past but I'm not aware of anything current.

 

 

I don't think that the current horses are considered transitional. But there is fossil evidence of transitional horses.

I think he's saying what were considered to be transitional fossils were found to be a subspecies because of "randomness in the chest cavity". I have no idea what he's talking about.

 

What the crap is he talking about???

He even said 3 of the Archaeopteryx's were hoaxes. This is just his way of dealing with knowledge of fossils I guess. He just calls them hoaxes.

 

You're talking about these guys: http://www.icr.org/ ??

Yeah, i've scanned through a couple of their articles. Not much valid info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.