[_ Old Earth _] Evolution, a theory for apes.

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
It would have been easier for him to just admit that he never read anything Gould wrote like that, and that he can't verify his claim.

I did verify the claim

No. You offered the defense that other people also claim Gould said it. But as we all observed, you repeatedly declined to show that the claim was true. I've read a lot of Gould, and never saw that. Clearly, you never did, either, or you'd have verified you claim, and that would settle it.

Why not just admit you can't find anything from Gould that says what you claimed he said? Then it's over for you.

 

[zeke]

Then go ahead and explain it and, based on your reasoned explanation, I will commit one way or the other.

I already explained it - are you going to commit or just dance?

OAnd what part of please clarify the terms you have used elsewhere to prejudge the evidence that is acceptable to you do you not understand?

You're dancing - the terms are clear. You are going to walk - yes?

I have nothing to commit on.

It is a straightforward question that only requires a simple answer and you refuse to answer preferring instead to claim you have "no clue". I guess that is as good as it will get. I am disappointed in you but not surprised judging by your past under-performance.

 

[zeke]

But as we all observed, you repeatedly declined to show that the claim was true.

But I showed how it could be correct - again, it is self-evident. You struggle.

 

[zeke]

ETA And just to refresh your memories, these are the exclusions I am asking for clarification of:

'Please, no pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, etc.'

I have defined the terms many times - go back and look them up. Mythology, bedtime stories, pseudoscience---all easy terms to understand. Are you going to do what you have boasted you can do or are you going on vacation again?

 

[Barbarian]

No. You offered the defense that other people also claim Gould said it. But as we all observed, you repeatedly declined to show that the claim was true.

But I showed how it could be correct

Sorry. If you make a claim, it's up to you to show that it's true. Why not just admit that you don't have any evidence for it?

Show us that Gould said what you claim he did. Even admitting that you can't do it would be better than trying to evade the issue.

 

[zeke]

No. You offered the defense that other people also claim Gould said it.

Davis and Kenyon presented the facts - are they liars? Is the statement correct that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry? If you do not think it is correct then prove it not correct. You cant - can you? You struggle.

Show us that Gould said what you claim he did.

Ditto above - Davis and Kenyon presented the facts - are they liars or are you desperate?

 

[lordkalvan]

I already explained it - are you going to commit or just dance?

Please link to the relevant explanation or provide the thread name and post number so that I can read the explanation and respond to it appropriately. You are the one dancing the jitterbug here.

You're dancing - the terms are clear. You are going to walk - yes?

They are not clear to me, which is why I asked for clarification.

It is a straightforward question that only requires a simple answer and you refuse to answer preferring instead to claim you have "no clue". I guess that is as good as it will get. I am disappointed in you but not surprised judging by your past under-performance.

I will answer based on your explanation. So far you have offered no explanation and I cannot give you an answer on nothing more than your assertions.

 

[zeke]

They are not clear to me, which is why I asked for clarification.

They are clear - let me know when/if you can present your evidence.

 

[lordkalvan]

They are clear - let me know when/if you can present your evidence.

They are not clear to me. If you are unable to offer the requested clarification, simply say so.

 

[Free]

They are clear - let me know when/if you can present your evidence.

If someone is asking for clarification, then provide it. Simply stating "they are clear" does absolutely nothing to further the discussion and is discourteous.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Show us that Gould said what you claim he did.

Ditto above - Davis and Kenyon presented the facts - are they liars or are you desperate?

I'm just suggesting that your reputation here would be considerably improved if you'd step up and show us that Gould actually said what you claimed he did. Telling us that someone else said so, will not do it for you.

By now, we all know that you just copied this from somewhere, and you never read anything like that by Gould. But it would be good if you'd have the character to admit it.

 

[zeke]

If someone is asking for clarification, then provide it. Simply stating "they are clear" does absolutely nothing to further the discussion and is discourteous.

But they are clear - "present evidence", "this thread", "scientific method" and "man-chimp common ancestry". What more clarification is needed?

 

[zeke]

They are not clear to me.

Which ones are you struggling with - I am here to help. Please be specific. Are you going to present your evidence this time?

 

[zeke]

I'm just suggesting that your reputation here would be considerably improved if you'd step up and show us that Gould actually said what you claimed he did.

I provided the reference word-for-word from Davis and Kenyon. Are you suggesting they made it up? You didn't answer the question - can homology support common design as well as it supports common ancestry? Or are you also still scratching your head?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I'm just suggesting that your reputation here would be considerably improved if you'd step up and show us that Gould actually said what you claimed he did.

I provided the reference word-for-word from Davis and Kenyon.

But you can't show that Gould actually thought so. So your claim is unsubstantiated. Since we aren't going to be able to check on what Gould thought, let's see if we can work it out for ourselves.

If birds evolved from dinosaurs, would you consider that to be an increase or a decrease in information, and what makes it so? (show the math, or if you can't do the math, show whatever quantitative measure you're using and show how it applies to the case at hand.

 

[lordkalvan]

Which ones are you struggling with - I am here to help. Please be specific. Are you going to present your evidence this time?

Your pretense of ignorance is bordering on the disingenuous. I have made it clear what I wish you to clarify and even linked you to the post where I first began the apparently futile effort to get you to define your terms; here it is again:

ETA And just to refresh your memories, these are the exclusions I am asking for clarification of:

'Please, no pseudoscience, Darwinian mythology, bedtime stories, etc.'

Source: http://www.christianforums.net/showt...l=1#post624746

So perhaps now you can do as requested, although I seriously doubt whether you will.

 

[lordkalvan]

I provided the reference word-for-word from Davis and Kenyon. Are you suggesting they made it up? You didn't answer the question - can homology support common design as well as it supports common ancestry? Or are you also still scratching your head?

If you can't cite the original source in which the named individual made the statement you (or someone else) claim s/he made, then you are guilty of potentially misrepresenting that person. That you refuse to acknowledge the dubious status of your claim here seems only to reflect a pitiful need not to be shown to be wrong about something you have said. Maybe Davis and Kenyon did make it up, maybe they didn't, but the point is that from the reference you have given there is no way of knowing one way or the other. Like Barbarian, I have read a great deal of Gould's public writings on science and nowhere have I come across a comment by him about homology as claimed by Davis and Kenyon, which casts further doubt on the reliability of their claim and your use of it to support your argument, especially when it is eminently clear that you have never read any such statement by Gould himself. Do yourself some credit and acknowledge that your Davis and Kenyon quote is not fit for purpose.

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by lordkalvan
Taxonomically, Homo sapiens is defined as a primate/ape for far more reasons than just chromosome similarity.



//////
And this genetic similarity can easily be explained by a common designer.

My chart shows that not all scientists acept that man is a great Ape but are prone to place man in a separate category.

But the common desin can NOT be used to explain away the fusing of two Ape chromosomes.

We are certain that there had been two sepoarate chromosomes which were muted into just one, from among the previous 24 Ape chromosomes.
Our certainty centers on the OBSERVABLE fact that there is still the end piece of end, the telomere, fused onto the other which has its own two end telomeres.

 

[lordkalvan]

My chart shows that not all scientists acept that man is a great Ape but are prone to place man in a separate category.

But the common desin can NOT be used to explain away the fusing of two Ape chromosomes.

We are certain that there had been two sepoarate chromosomes which were muted into just one, from among the previous 24 Ape chromosomes.
Our certainty centers on the OBSERVABLE fact that there is still the end piece of end, the telomere, fused onto the other which has its own two end telomeres.

And we haven't even got onto ERVs yet.....

 

[cupid dave]

You asked how 'genetic similarity' is accounted for by 'a common designer' and I told you - what part do you miss?

That we see what looks like two of the 24 Ape chromosomes fused into one Chromosome.

But this one human chromosome among our 23 chromosomes appears with the telomere ends of both showing.
We KNOW then that this was a mutation within the Ape DNA.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)

"Chromosome 2 presents verystrong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes.

According to researcher J. W. IJdo,"We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relicof an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to giverise to human chromosome 2.