[_ Old Earth _] A Summary of This Year's Defeats of Evolution Theory

[pHghost]

zeke, you are twisting and turning.

One could say you are almost dancing.

If then you don't maintain that all of Darwin's work is myth, could you please specify which parts of it you DO consider myth? If you can do this single, straightforward thing, then we can try and find for you the answer you are asking for (considering it exists, of course).

Unless you define the specific part of his theories that are problematic in your view, we cannot really help, commenting on the whole body of Darwin's work is too general and will lead nowhere.

And when I say 'specific part,' I mean a true part of his theories. The statement 'dinosaurs evolved into birds' is something that you personally derived from what you think you know of Darwin's work, I don't think Darwin himself ever uttered those words.

Thank you.

 

[zeke]

And when I say 'specific part,' I mean a true part of his theories. The statement 'dinosaurs evolved into birds' is something that you personally derived from what you think you know of Darwin's work, I don't think Darwin himself ever uttered those words.

Well, you appear to be confused ghost - or completely misinformed. Darwin proposed the theory of *universal common descent* via his identified mechanisms so at some point in deep time dinos had to evolve from something else and into something else - presto-chango - dino to bird. Darwinians are pretty much agreed that dinosaurs of some flavor gave birth to birds via blind chance and a few lucky mutations. I don’t think Darwin would have had a problem with that concept – do you?

If you really want to be of service in this discussion maybe you can help our mutual friend come up with evidence using a scientific method that can prove man and chimp have a common ancestor. He is not quite there yet. What do you have to offer? How about the "missing links" in the fossil record - Darwinians really don't want to go there any more for the obvious reasons. Is that your expertise?

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.~ Edmund Ronald Leach (anthropologist) (Still Missing After All These Years - Evolution is Dead...2008)​

Thanks in advance for using only evidence from science.

 

[pHghost]

Like Michael Jackson.

Well, you appear to be confused ghost - or completely misinformed.

I am completely unfazed by your personal attacks attempting to discredit me. You know very well what I meant. Please work off facts and not assumptions:

I don’t think Darwin would have had a problem with that concept – do you?

That is beside the point. Just the mere fact you have to SUPPOSE he wouldn't have a problem with it shows that he in fact did not say it. Would he have a problem with it? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, he's sort of dead.

Once more -- please point to the things he DID say that you find problematic and then a concrete and hopefully fruitful discussion can begin.

 

[Sparkey]

Here's a loaded question for ya: Would a classification system that defined "Tetrapoda" morphologically as vertebrates with four limbs (as well as animals with four-limbed ancestors, such as snakes), be acceptable to you as "evidence"?

 

[zeke]

I am completely unfazed by your personal attacks attempting to discredit me.

No personal attack at all - you really appear to misunderstand what Darwin presented in his theory of *universal common descent*. You also didn't answer the questions - do you really think Darwin would have had a problem with dino-bird evolution? What do you have to offer as help for your fellow Darwinians on this thread? Is the fossil record your expertise?

 

[zeke]

Here's a loaded question for ya: Would a classification system that defined "Tetrapoda" morphologically as vertebrates with four limbs (as well as animals with four-limbed ancestors, such as snakes), be acceptable to you as "evidence"?

Evidence for what?

Do didn't answer my question - do you believe dinosaurs evolved into birds?

 

[pHghost]

No personal attack at all - you really appear to misunderstand what Darwin presented in his theory of *universal common descent*.

In that case you should probably learn to read better. I did in no way comment on his theory. I only stated that your own personal quote of 'dinos turning into birds' is not something Darwin specifically said. If I am mistaken, please refer me to the document where these words of his are noted.

You also didn't answer the questions - do you really think Darwin would have had a problem with dino-bird evolution? What do you have to offer as help for your fellow Darwinians on this thread? Is the fossil record your expertise?

I am not a Darwinian. I am not saying you should accept Darwinism.

I am only saying you need to be much clearer with what your issue with Darwinism is, otherwise this discussion cannot lead anywhere.

 

[Sparkey]

My answer (for what it is worth) to the specific question, "Do you believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds," is "No."

Your turn. You've also asked, "evidence for what?" as if you didn't know. My answer: "evidence that you would consider to be scientific, in reply to the general theme asking for evidence that could be used to support "Darwinian Myth" (your term, not mine). Would a classification system that defined "Tetrapoda" morphologically as vertebrates with four limbs (as well as animals with four-limbed ancestors, such as snakes), be acceptable to you as "evidence"?

 

[zeke]

I am not a Darwinian. I am not saying you should accept Darwinism.

Why should we not accept Darwinism - in your mind?

I am only saying you need to be much clearer with what your issue with Darwinism is, otherwise this discussion cannot lead anywhere.

But I have been very clear - where do you remain confused?

 

[zeke]

Your turn. You've also asked, "evidence for what?" as if you didn't know. My answer: "evidence that you would consider to be scientific, in reply to the general theme asking for evidence that could be used to support "Darwinian Myth" (your term, not mine). Would a classification system that defined "Tetrapoda" morphologically as vertebrates with four limbs (as well as animals with four-limbed ancestors, such as snakes), be acceptable to you as "evidence"?

Clarification please - to which four-limbed ancestors of snakes do you refer? Are you referring to Darwinian myth or science?

 

[Sparkey]

For clarification purposes, my question is more about morphological evidence of which snakes are one example.

 

[zeke]

As you have often stated, a simple yes or no answer is sufficient. Let's try to avoid equivocation. Any four-limbed ancestor of snakes will do well enough, provided they are tetrapods. The question that I have put to you is about your definitions, not the evidence I will bring if you agree it is scientific or if you will declare it psuedo-science. For the record, we will only discuss things that are observable, although my example is supported by biblical evidence as well.

I am still not sure what it is you are requesting - can you rephrase please. I have seen no evidence that snakes had four-limbed ancestor - tetrapods or non-tetrapods but I would review whatever evidence you have.

 

[Sparkey]

I tried to give you a more considered reply - and deleted the comment you quoted. Kindly consider it.

 

[zeke]

I tried to give you a more considered reply - and deleted the comment you quoted. Kindly consider it.

Can you rephrase your question please?

 

[Sparkey]

Does the branch of biology known as "morphology" in the life sciences qualify (by your terms and definitions) as evidence? You've asked for evidence that complies with the scientific method, presumably meaning observation, and I wondered if you would rule this entire branch of science out or not.

[EDIT]: I have a class assignment that I need to get ready and attend, pardon me if I drop out and check back later to see your response.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have given many examples and of course you remember.

Er, we're not talking examples offered absent any explanatory argument, but the explanatory argument itself. And no, I don't remember any such explanatory argument.

But let's do it one more time for you - when Darwinians state saurischian dinosaurs evolved into birds they are making a statement of religion but they claim it is a statement of scientific fact thus the blurring of the line. Easy concept.

If it's an 'easy concept' you can explain it for us. First of all, to nitpick, it's not the saurichsian dinosaurs per se, but the bipedal theropod dinosaurs. Secondly, asserting this is 'a statement of religion but they claim it is a statement of fact' explains nothing and is certainly not evidential. Can you show any 'Darwinian' claiming any such thing and can you thereafter explain how this constitutes 'a statement of religion'? Also, how does this explain what constitutes the factual difference you have referred to, how does it show that 'Darwinism blurs the line between...statements of religion and statements of science', and how does it demonstrate what part of Darwinism does this and what part constitutes the 'biological evolution' that you keep referring to as 'factual'? All you ever offer are bald assertions absent all explanation and it is the explanation I am seeking. Do you understand what an explanation is?

'An explanation is a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts.'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation

Now - can you present your evidence or simply admit you have none? No dancing please.

As soon as you provide the requested explanations clarifying your prejudged assertions as to what evidence is unacceptable to you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Well, you appear to be confused ghost - or completely misinformed. Darwin proposed the theory of *universal common descent* via his identified mechanisms so at some point in deep time dinos had to evolve from something else and into something else - presto-chango - dino to bird. Darwinians are pretty much agreed that dinosaurs of some flavor gave birth to birds via blind chance and a few lucky mutations. I don’t think Darwin would have had a problem with that concept – do you?

If you really want to be of service in this discussion maybe you can help our mutual friend come up with evidence using a scientific method that can prove man and chimp have a common ancestor. He is not quite there yet. What do you have to offer? How about the "missing links" in the fossil record - Darwinians really don't want to go there any more for the obvious reasons. Is that your expertise?

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.~ Edmund Ronald Leach (anthropologist) (Still Missing After All These Years - Evolution is Dead...2008)​

Thanks in advance for using only evidence from science.

I am still curious to know how someone who died in 1987 could have written something you attribute to 2008. Can you explain this?

ETA Every reference I can find to this quote appears to trace back to a creationist or other anti-evolutionary theory site, so I wonder if one of these is your source and explains the apparent attribution error. Can you confirm where you sourced this quote from?

 

[zeke]

First of all, to nitpick, it's not the saurichsian dinosaurs per se, but the bipedal theropod dinosaurs.

Lol – have you evolved into a dino expert...

All carnivorous dinosaurs (the theropods) are saurischians, ~ Wikipedia​

Checking back and still no evidence presented based on a scientific method to prove your boast. What's with that?

 

[lordkalvan]

Lol – have you evolved into a dino expert...

All carnivorous dinosaurs (the theropods) are saurischians, ~ Wikipedia​

eh, yes, but not all saurichsian dinosaurs are theropods, which is why I said it was a nitpick. The Sauropoda were saurichsian dinosaurs that were quadrupedal and herbivorous. So I appear to be at least as much an 'expert' as you are. Also, you seem to have avoided answering the rest of the post you are responding to. Why is that?

Checking back and still no evidence presented based on a scientific method to prove your boast. What's with that?

If you read the remainder of the post you are responding to only a part of, you would know exactly what 'is with that'. I think I can only have explained it a half-dozen times.

 

[zeke]

The Sauropoda were saurichsian dinosaurs that were quadrupedal and herbivorous.

Did sauropoda evolve into me and you via the zoo - in your creation myth?

Also, you seem to have avoided answering the rest of the post you are responding to.

Repetitive as noted.

I think I can only have explained it a half-dozen times.

And yet still no evidence based on a scientific method to prove your boast. Are you at least working on it or is that about it?