[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[Barbarian]

Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly. More important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. ~ Jeremy Rifkin,. Algeny. Viking Press.

Jeremy isn't a very smart guy. He's the dingbat who was predicting a genetic apocalypse because of genetically manipulated crops. So it's not surprising that he is unaware that one of the earliest animal speciations we happened to directly observe was a fruit fly, or that there is enormous variation in fruit flies, and no one has approached anything like a limit to its variation. None in sight.

These are just a few from North America. The apple maggot fruit fly didn't exist 200 years ago. It evolved when apples were introduced to North America. And Hawaii has far more variation than any continent; when fruit flies finally got there, there were almost no insects, and the evolved to fill all sorts of niches. Still doing that.

Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly.

There is more variance within fruit flies than within anthropoid primates. It is as if Rifken waved away the evolution of humans by claiming we are still just primates.

BTW, "Algeny" is a rather melodramatic movie, made from Rifken's melodramatic book. Different title. But since you didn't see the movie, you or the person who did that quote-mining got the title wrong.

 

[Sparkey]

Guys, one sec, please?

I can trace my ancestry back 5 generations. My sisters are eligible for membership in the D.A.R. (should they want) because both sides of my family (maternal and paternal) came to America before the American Revolution.

But the furthest back that I can "prove" (or discover) is on my mother's side, where it is evident that she came from the city or county of Cork, Ireland. Do any of you have a Family Tree or genealogy that is older? I imagine that some would and don't count myself as "special" because of it, but FIVE generations only is my limit! Let me just ask, is it possible for any to trace my ancestry back more than 500 years? The point that I'm making is that when we look at fossils (and count them as "evidence") it is weak evidence that merely suggests ancestry, not proof.

Some will want to say, "This is the only evidence of life that we have from billions of years ago, so our conclusions that humans must have evolved from this is a certainty." Others will want to say, "God ..."

If we can't even agree on a "proof" of His existence, how can we expect to agree on anything else, like what He may or may not have done? I'd want more than similarity (or homology) to be brought to evidence before making any conclusion. I do understand that DNA testing can determine paternity. If we are trying to say that God is not my Father, that ultimately He did not create mankind, who do I sue to get child support here? Evolution? I'm being silly (a little) but the point that I'd like to suggest is that our courts have rules of evidence and the assertion that God is not our Father, when He claims that He is, would not even be admitted. It is enough that He claims it.

 

[zeke]

Jeremy isn't a very smart guy. He's the dingbat who was predicting a genetic apocalypse because of genetically manipulated crops.

Your ad hominem fallacy does not help your weak position at all but that hasn't stopped you before - has it?

These are just a few from North America. The apple maggot fruit fly didn't exist 200 years ago.

Does your pollyanna Darwinism predict that the apple maggot fruit fly will eventually evolve into an old world fruit bat? They both have wings and like fruit you know.

There is more variance within fruit flies than within anthropoid primates.

Maybe they share a common mother ancestor but have a step-common father ancestor. I didn't see your point.

It is as if Rifken waved away the evolution of humans by claiming we are still just primates.

When did he do that - or are you still confused?

 

[lordkalvan]

You can start anywhere you like my friend.

There you go, backsliding again, and you were doing so well. Where would you like to start? How about homologies, given your apparent keen interest in them? By the way, can you show us how homologies support common design, as you continually assert, but continually fail to demonstrate no matter how many times requested to do so? And are you yet prepared to acknowledge that your 'recollections' to the effect of what Gould said in the paper cited by Davis and Kenyon are not supported by that paper?

All I have asked for is that you present the required evidences based on the scientific method ON THIS THREAD that prove you and I are descendants of tetrapods.

If you want proof, you're not going to get it, not least of all because science doesn't deal in proof, but also because I am fairly confident that, from the tenor of your posts, no evidence that could be offered would be acceptable to you as proof meeting the requirements you have in your own mind. This is clearly demonstrated by your inability to address, let alone refute, any of the evidence that Barbarian has posted in response to your various assertions and demands.

That should be easy for any learned Darwinian. If for any reason you cannot support your assumption just admit that you cannot. We will understand.

You mean in the same way that you admit you cannot support your various assumptions (for example, that homology is evidence for common design)?

Please – no hand-waing-in-the-air assumptions and speculations founded in myth.

It seems to be that any moment you are confronted with evidence you don't like, the handwaving starts with yourself as you immediately categorize it as 'myth' without offering any explanation at all as to why it must be so regarded.

And please try to avoid the Darwinian circularity that says it is true because Darwinian scientists say it it true – that one gets old fast.

If it's that old, I am sure you can reference 'Darwinian scientists' saying it. Or is this something else we have to take as fact because you asset it to be?

Oh yeah, if you have to resort to evolution of the gaps please identify it as such. Thanks in advance.

Please define what you mean by 'evolution of the gaps'. Do you mean the absence of a continuous chain of direct ancestral links between all tetrapods and all mammalian bipeds?

It appears the only real hurdle for your odyssey will be finding that elusive and yet missing evidence from real science.

Please define 'real science. This has been asked of you before, but you get very vague around the subject.

You have failed before but maybe you will have better luck this time.

Really? Where?

Maybe the gods of Darwinism - Time, Chance and Mutation are on your side.

Ah, I see one of your your problems. The three things you list are not supernatural beings, but quite natural phenomena.

Remember – morphology, vestigial features, developmental embryology, etc work as well for common design as they do for common ancestry and therefore they prove neither.

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence; but that aside, please show us how 'morphology, vestigial features, developmental embryology, etc work as well for common design as they do for common ancestry'. You continue to assert this, but never explain how, so why should we take your word for it.

If you want to be taken seriously you will have to do better than that - right?

Please enumerate, having pre-excluded all evidence that you find objectionable (which seems to be pretty much any that you know will be evidence for the case you don't like), exactly what evidence you don't find objectionable.

The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation (twelve days). X rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to “catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila (fruit fly) is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution.†Even with this tremendous speedup of mutations, scientists have never been able to come up with anything other than a fruit fly. More important, what all these experiments demonstrate is that the fruit fly can vary within certain upper and lower limits but will never go beyond them. ~ Jeremy Rifkin,. Algeny. Viking Press.​

Who is Jeremy Rifkin and why should I value his opinion on what may or may not be 'upper and lower limits' and why he supposes that 'the fruit fly...will never go beyond them'?

 

[zeke]

Go back and look through the thread. Cites of evidence, diagrams, pictures, all sorts of data from the literature.

Well, you do include diagrams, pictures, data from literature but you are missing the main ingredient - scientific evidence that proves your ancestor and fruit-flies once flew together

Explain why numerous predicted transitional fossils have been found, but never one that is not predicted by the theory.

Where are these alleged "numerous predicted transitional fossils" to be found? Isn't this just one more fallacy presented under Darwinian lore?

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson. This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’​

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’​

~ Gary Bates "That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils"​

Do you really have "numerous predicted transitional fossils"? I think not. What did Patterson mean when he admitted - "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument..."? Are you a Polyanna?

pol·ly·an·na - unreasonably or illogically optimistic​

Zeke, do you really think people don't understand what you're trying to do?

I think they do - just trying to separate science from Darwinian myth. What are you trying to do?

A case in point is Archaeopteryx. It was found a long time ago, and since it had characteristics of birds and dinosaurs, it was validation of Huxley's prediction that birds and dinosaurs were closely related. It was called "the first bird."

You may want to read up on the work of Alan Feduccia, bird authority (University of NC and evolutionist). He says Archaeopteryx has nothing to do with "feathered dinosaurs" - he says Archaeopteryx was (are ready for this)...a bird. Do you know what Feduccia means regarding ‘paleobabble’? Are you a ‘paleobabbler’? ;)

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” ~ Alan Feduccia​

 

[zeke]

There you go, backsliding again, and you were doing so well. Where would you like to start? How about homologies, given your apparent keen interest in them? By the way, can you show us how homologies support common design, as you continually assert, but continually fail to demonstrate no matter how many times requested to do so?

As noted on many occasions - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. For this reason homologies neither prove nor disprove your side or mine. If you are having trouble following clear logic let me know where your failed comprehension is and I can help you. Are Davis and Kenyon wrong in their statement below or can you not follow their words?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

And are you yet prepared to acknowledge that your 'recollections' to the effect of what Gould said in the paper cited by Davis and Kenyon are not supported by that paper?

Are you saying Davis and Kenyon are liars regarding Gould's comments? They made those remarks in a very public way during his lifetime and he never refuted them. Why - because it is only logical that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You may be confused on this easy concept.

If you want proof, you're not going to get it, not least of all because science doesn't deal in proof, but also because I am fairly confident that, from the tenor of your posts, no evidence that could be offered would be acceptable to you as proof meeting the requirements you have in your own mind.

Are you now admitting that you do not have the required evidences? Admission is the first step in the cure my friend - you are progressing. :yes

You mean in the same way that you admit you cannot support your various assumptions (for example, that homology is evidence for common design)?

I have admitted the truth - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You are the one making the dogmatic (and illogical) statement that homology supports only common ancestry. The burden of proof is yours to support your dogma. But you have failed to do that - why? Are you not capable?

 

[Sparkey]

The title of the thread is "just curious" so...

Let me ask what we know about caterpillars, butterflies and moths. Is it true that during the metamorphisis the pupa is completely liquified inside the cocoon? If caterpillars, moths, and butterflies were all extinct and all we had was fossil evidence for their existence (and no cocoons), I wonder if we would be able to present "proof" that they were related at all.

 

[zeke]

The title of the thread is "just curious" so...

Let me ask what we know about caterpillars, butterflies and moths. Is it true that during the metamorphisis the pupa is completely liquified inside the cocoon? If caterpillars, moths, and butterflies were all extinct and all we had was fossil evidence for their existence (and no cocoons), I wonder if we would be able to present "proof" that they were related at all.

Using the circularity and assumptions of Darwinism - we could and would.

 

[Sparkey]

RE: caterpillars, moths and butterflies --> "I wonder if we would be able to present "proof" that they were related at all."

Using the circularity and assumptions of Darwinism - we could and would.

I don't see how. In point of fact, I doubt that even creationists would make that leap - personally I wouldn't believe it. I'd be one of those who would insist that those who held the theory that fossilized caterpillars were in any way related to fossilized moths prove it beyond mere speculation.

I don't think that God created caterpillars and moths in order to deceive anybody either. The fallacy of black & white thinking rests squarely on my shoulders. It isn't an either/or situation.

 

[lordkalvan]

As noted on many occasions - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

And as noted on many occasions, your repeated assertions that homology supports common design tells us nothing about how and why it does. Are you unable to do this?

For this reason homologies neither prove nor disprove your side or mine.

Whether they do this or not is less important than your inability to explain how and why homologies do this. Is repetition of a mantra all you have to offer here?

If you are having trouble following clear logic let me know where your failed comprehension is and I can help you.

The only difficulty here appears to be your failure to grasp the relatively simple idea that if you make an assertion - that homologies support common design - the burden of supporting this rests on your shoulders, not on others' to disprove any grandiose claim you care to make.

Are Davis and Kenyon wrong in their statement below or can you not follow their words?

The existence of homologous structures merely raises questions of relationship, but it cannot answer them. This is why Stephen Gould remarked that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. Both Darwinists and design proponents can explain the existence of homologies within their respective frameworks of interpretation. Because of this, neither side can disprove the other’s interpretation of homology, and neither view stands solely on its own interpretation of homology. ~ Davis and Kenyon​

I don't know whether they are wrong or not because - and here's the crucial point you seem unable to grasp - neither you nor they have given any account of why this should be so. However, I do know that they - and you - are quite wrong when they - and you - claim that the cited paper by Gould supports the claim concerning the alleged statement he made about homologies and common design.

Are you saying Davis and Kenyon are liars regarding Gould's comments?

If they make the claim that a cited paper contains a statement by a scientist that it clearly doesn't, what do you suggest they are doing?

They made those remarks in a very public way during his lifetime and he never refuted them.

Do you suppose that Gould may have had better things to do than spend his valuable time individually refuting every quote mine and misrepresentation that creationists have perpetrated against him?

Why - because it is only logical that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You may be confused on this easy concept.

I find it instructive of your approach to discussion that, when caught bending with your trousers firmly bunched around your ankles, rather than man up and admit your error you prefer to engage in schoolyard rhetoric and bluster of the level that you are too right, so there.

Are you now admitting that you do not have the required evidences? Admission is the first step in the cure my friend - you are progressing. :yes

Sorry, but you still haven't reached the 'my friend' entitlement, yet. I am simply trying to determine what evidence you do regard as acceptable, as you have excluded and prejudged ranges of evidence out of nothing more than apparent dislike of their implications.

I have admitted the truth - homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. You are the one making the dogmatic (and illogical) statement that homology supports only common ancestry. The burden of proof is yours to support your dogma. But you have failed to do that - why? Are you not capable?

Unsupported assertion, that because you make an unsubstantiated claim it stands as 'the truth'. Please show how homology supports common design. This is your claim, your dogma, your alleged logic and your burden to support. So I ask you that, having consistently failed to do so, is this because you are incapable of so doing?

ETA You omitted to address the various points in Post 214 as well, not to mention the ones you have ignored in this 'response'; would it be reasonable for me to assume this is because you can't?

 

[lordkalvan]

The title of the thread is "just curious" so...

Let me ask what we know about caterpillars, butterflies and moths. Is it true that during the metamorphisis the pupa is completely liquified inside the cocoon? If caterpillars, moths, and butterflies were all extinct and all we had was fossil evidence for their existence (and no cocoons), I wonder if we would be able to present "proof" that they were related at all.

An interesting thought exercise. I think the only way we could make any such connection would be either by comparing them with some organism with an analogous lifestyle, speculating on the immature forms of adult butterflies and moths, or - with luck - retrieving genetic material for analysis.

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't see how. In point of fact, I doubt that even creationists would make that leap - personally I wouldn't believe it. I'd be one of those who would insist that those who held the theory that fossilized caterpillars were in any way related to fossilized moths prove it beyond mere speculation.

I don't think that God created caterpillars and moths in order to deceive anybody either. The fallacy of black & white thinking rests squarely on my shoulders. It isn't an either/or situation.

Good points all.

 

[Barbarian]

Let me ask what we know about caterpillars, butterflies and moths. Is it true that during the metamorphisis the pupa is completely liquified inside the cocoon?

No. If that happened, the organism would be dead. What happens is what happens in an embyryo; tissues are removed, rebuilt, cells migrate about, and so on. Apoptosis (controlled cell death) is what makes the restructuring of the organism possible. But only a fraction of the cells actually die. It's just embryology.

If caterpillars, moths, and butterflies were all extinct and all we had was fossil evidence for their existence (and no cocoons), I wonder if we would be able to present "proof" that they were related at all.

Well, we'd know that the adults were all related from anatomical markers, and in the case of amber, DNA. The caterpillars might be a problem, since the are essentially embryonic, and greatly resemble the onychophorans from which arthropods evolved.

I'd be happy to discuss the evidence of arthropod origin in the onychophorans, if anyone wants to see it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Explain why numerous predicted transitional fossils have been found, but never one that is not predicted by the theory.

Where are these alleged "numerous predicted transitional fossils" to be found?

Frogs and Salamanders:
Nature 453, 515-518 (22 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06865; Received 23 October 2007; Accepted 25 February 2008

A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/abs/nature06865.html

Turtles and primitive anapsids:
An ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China

The origin of the turtle body plan remains one of the great mysteries of reptile evolution. The anatomy of turtles is highly derived, which renders it difficult to establish the relationships of turtles with other groups of reptiles. The oldest known turtle, Proganochelys from the Late Triassic period of Germany1, has a fully formed shell and offers no clue as to its origin. Here we describe a new 220-million-year-old turtle from China, somewhat older than Proganochelys, that documents an intermediate step in the evolution of the shell and associated structures. A ventral plastron is fully developed, but the dorsal carapace consists of neural plates only. The dorsal ribs are expanded, and osteoderms are absent. The new species shows that the plastron evolved before the carapace and that the first step of carapace formation is the ossification of the neural plates coupled with a broadening of the ribs. This corresponds to early embryonic stages of carapace formation in extant turtles, and shows that the turtle shell is not derived from a fusion of osteoderms. Phylogenetic analysis places the new species basal to all known turtles, fossil and extant. The marine deposits that yielded the fossils indicate that this primitive turtle inhabited marginal areas of the sea or river deltas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7221/abs/nature07533.html

How many more would you like to see?

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson,...

That's nice, but since you've been repeatedly caught misrepresenting people, no one gives your edited "quotes" much credibility. You've been caught again, BTW:

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Either this is another fake, Patterson doesn't know what he's talking about, or Patterson is being dishonest. Here's the proof:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

Barbarian asks
Zeke, do you really think people don't understand what you're trying to do?

I think they do

Me too. And you just gave them more evidence. If your argument requires faking what scientists say it says much about the validity of your argument.

What are you trying to do?

Just now, I'm shining a light on some of that dishonesty for others to see.

Barbarian observes:
A case in point is Archaeopteryx. It was found a long time ago, and since it had characteristics of birds and dinosaurs, it was validation of Huxley's prediction that birds and dinosaurs were closely related. It was called "the first bird."

You may want to read up on the work of Alan Feduccia, bird authority (University of NC and evolutionist).

I actually read Feduccia. You might have noted that I mentioned him earlier in a technical point on birds. I can tell that you have never read his work, however, and this is the evidence:

He says Archaeopteryx has nothing to do with "feathered dinosaurs" - he says Archaeopteryx was (are ready for this)...a bird. Do you know what Feduccia means regarding ‘paleobabble’? Are you a ‘paleobabbler’?

Feduccia differs from most paleontologists (he's not a paleontologist, BTW) in that he thinks birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor which was a thecodont, instead of dinosaurs evolving from thecodonts and then birds from dinosaurs. He thinks birds are sisters rather than daughters of dinosaurs. Most scientists don't think so, because Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur features than birds, and because birdlike lungs are found in dinosaurs, but not thecodonts. If you want to learn about it, you might read Feduccia's The Origin and Evolution of Birds. It's written to be accessible to the layman. BTW, I think there's a chance that Feduccia could be right, but on the balance, the evidence doesn't support him.

If you'd actually read some of the things you cite, instead of depending on other people's slant on them, you wouldn't be so easy to ambush with the facts. Just saying...

 

[zeke]

Frogs and Salamanders:
Nature 453, 515-518 (22 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06865; Received 23 October 2007; Accepted 25 February 2008

Your 'Nature' article proves nothing other than the admission that "large morphological and temporal gaps in the fossil record" exist and that is nothing new - Darwin told us that 150 years ago. Collin Patterson concurs. What happened to you?

Is that about it?

Either this is another fake, Patterson doesn't know what he's talking about, or Patterson is being dishonest.

The remarks from Patterson are spot on. For the record he was one of the quintessential Darwinists of the 20th century and unlike you he knew what he was saying about the lack of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. He was a paleontologist at the British Museum - he was honest and an excellent scientist of the Darwinian kind. The quote provided was in context and remains as true today as the day he made it. Try to keep up.

Read it again - you may have missed what he is saying about your missing in action evolutionary transitions that you appear to have misplaced. Do you have the fossils to support the Darwinian mythology you are trying to peddle or shall we move on?

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ ~ Colin Patterson​

Here's the proof

Per normal you have no proof - just hands waving in the air.

Feduccia differs from most paleontologists (he's not a paleontologist, BTW) in that he thinks birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor which was a thecodont, instead of dinosaurs evolving from thecodonts and then birds from dinosaurs. He thinks birds are sisters rather than daughters of dinosaurs. Most scientists don't think so, because Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur features than birds, and because birdlike lungs are found in dinosaurs, but not thecodonts. If you want to learn about it, you might read Feduccia's The Origin and Evolution of Birds.

It is obvious that you have never read Feduccia's work or you don't comprehend what you read. Or you are being deceitful in misrepresenting what the professor has stated. Which is it?

Read his words one more time - slowly...

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.†~ Alan Feduccia​

He is saying that paleobabblers have erroneously tried to turn Archaeopteryx into feathered dinosaur but that creature was what it always had been - a perching bird that had nothing to do with dinosaurs. You are simply parroting the paleobabblers and confusing yourself once again. You have bought into a mythology that cannot be supported by science. Let us know when you finally get it. Or are you trying to deceive folks intentionally?

 

[zeke]

Sorry, but you still haven't reached the 'my friend' entitlement, yet.

Okay my non-friend.

I don't know whether they are wrong or not because - and here's the crucial point you seem unable to grasp - neither you nor they have given any account of why this should be so.

You miss the point once again. The question that begs is why do you reject the logical statement that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry? It's a given. Why do you insist is it not true - or do you? Davis and Kenyon agree that it is true and they gave their reasoning. They note that Stephen Gould agreed with that logic - what are you still missing?

I am simply trying to determine what evidence you do regard as acceptable, as you have excluded and prejudged ranges of evidence out of nothing more than apparent dislike of their implications.

I have gone over this with you time and again. We are discussing biological evolution not Darwinian mythology. I am not concerned with your religious beliefs. The evidence required to support your assumptions and speculations is the kind that adheres to a scientific method. That requirement automatically excludes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric.

Can you present the evidence on this thread that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? That would be a 'yes' or a 'no'. And your answer is...

 

[Barbarian]

Your 'Nature' article proves nothing other than the admission that "large morphological and temporal gaps in the fossil record" exist

Also it shows a transitional between salamanders and frogs. A predicted one, BTW. And that brings us to the question you keep dodging. Why do we see so many predicted transitionals, but none at all where the theory doesn't predict them?

Is that about it?

Until you marshall the will to answer the question.

(claim that Patterson declared that Gould said there are no transitionals)

Barbarian chuckles:
Either this is another fake, Patterson doesn't know what he's talking about, or Patterson is being dishonest.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
--Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

The remarks from Patterson are spot on.

See above. Gould emphatically says that transitionals are abundant. If Patterson said what you claim he did, he's wrong. Once again, you've posted a falsehood, and now you're trying to justify doing it. There's no way to get out fo that. Gould did not say there were no transitionals, and the above statement makes that perfectly clear. Perhaps you'd better avoid posting any more quotes until you learn enough to check them out.

Per normal you have no proof

I did however, show you two more transitional fossils. And you dodged the question, once again.

You may want to read up on the work of Alan Feduccia, bird authority (University of NC and evolutionist).

Barbarian chuckles:
I actually read Feduccia. You might have noted that I mentioned him earlier in a technical point on birds. I can tell that you have never read his work, however, and this is the evidence:

He says Archaeopteryx has nothing to do with "feathered dinosaurs" - he says Archaeopteryx was (are ready for this)...a bird. Do you know what Feduccia means regarding ‘paleobabble’? Are you a ‘paleobabbler’?

Barbarian observes:
Feduccia differs from most paleontologists (he's not a paleontologist, BTW) in that he thinks birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor which was a thecodont, instead of dinosaurs evolving from thecodonts and then birds from dinosaurs. He thinks birds are sisters rather than daughters of dinosaurs. Most scientists don't think so, because Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur features than birds, and because birdlike lungs are found in dinosaurs, but not thecodonts. If you want to learn about it, you might read Feduccia's The Origin and Evolution of Birds.

It is obvious that you have never read Feduccia's work or you don't comprehend what you read.

A small minority, including ornithologists Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, continues to assert that birds are instead the descendants of earlier archosaurs, such as Longisquama or Euparkeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

Surprise. Just what I told you. Admit it, you've never read any complete article by Feduccia at all, have you?

He is saying that paleobabblers have erroneously tried to turn Archaeopteryx into feathered dinosaur but that creature was what it always had been - a perching bird that had nothing to do with dinosaurs.

In fact, he hypothesizes that dinosaurs and birds had a common ancestor in the archosaurs. You've been led down the path by people you shouldn't have trusted.

But if you like, we can take a look at a bird, Archaeopteryx, and a small theropod dinosaur, and consider which two are most alike. Would you like to do that?

 

[zeke]

If Patterson said what you claim he did, he's wrong. Once again, you've posted a falsehood, and now you're trying to justify doing it.

Patterson's words are what they are. He spoke the truth - get over it. You are out of control. You are falsely accusing me out of desperation and you cannot accept the truth presented by Patterson or Gee. I will check back on this forum from time to time to see if our other friend can actually come up with the evidence he claims he has but there is no reason discussing this topic with you any longer. Your posts are going in circles and you remain confused.

 

[lordkalvan]

Okay my non-friend.

Thank you for following my wishes in this matter, I appreciate that.

You miss the point once again. The question that begs is why do you reject the logical statement that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry?

First of all, I don't think you understand what constitutes begging the question: this is a form of logical fallacy where the conclusion is assumed to be true in the premises of the argument. It's also known as circular reasoning. If you can show that why asking you to support an answer you have made amounts to this type of reasoning, I would be happy to reflect on your argument to that effect.

Secondly, you have given no logical grounds to support your statement that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry, so there is nothing logical to agree or disagree with. Why you fail to grasp this simple fact, I have no idea, but until you have offered reasons to substantiate that assertion you have provided no grounds on which to agree or disagree with your claim.

It's a given.

You have failed to show how it is a given. Asserting that it's a given does not make it so. Do you not grasp this simple concept? If you make a positive claim and expect others to agree with it, you have to provide reasoned argument as to why it is a positive claim. So far, whenever asked to do so, all you do is repeat your assertion as if that's all you need to do.

Why do you insist is it not true - or do you?

So far, I have insisted no such thing, simply asked you to support your claim that it is true.

Davis and Kenyon agree that it is true and they gave their reasoning.

And as pointed out repeatedly, but you repeatedly fail to grasp, in the quote they give they provide no reasoning at all, but simply assert that it is so, just as you do.

They note that Stephen Gould agreed with that logic - what are you still missing?

I am missing why you continually invoke Gould to support your claim when I have demonstrated conclusively that, in the paper referenced by Davis and Kenyon - and that you claim to recollect agrees with what they say - Gould does not say what they (and you) claim he says. Why are you continuing with what, on the face of it, appears to be a dishonest claim?

I have gone over this with you time and again.We are discussing biological evolution not Darwinian mythology. I am not concerned with your religious beliefs. The evidence required to support your assumptions and speculations is the kind that adheres to a scientific method. That requirement automatically excludes pseudoscience, mythology, bedtime stories and fallacious rhetoric.

This is just word salad. Please define your terms so we know what you mean. What do you understand by:

1. Biological evolution.
2. How does it differ from 'Darwinian mythology'?
3. How have you determined that Darwin's work amounts to 'mythology' at all?
4. What is evidence that adheres to a scientific method in your view? In other words, how are you defining evidence and what constitutes a scientific method in this instance?
5. What constitutes pseudoscience in this context and can you show how it is pseudoscience?
6. What constitutes mythology in this context and can you show how it is mythology?
7. What constitutes bedtime stories in this context and can you show how they are bedtime stories?
8. What constitutes fallacious rhetoric in this context and can you show how it is fallacious rhetoric?

Or do you mean that you simply intend to reject out of hand any argument that contradicts your pre-existing ideas by asserting that it constitutes one of these categories?

Can you present the evidence on this thread that proves man and chimp have a common ancestor? That would be a 'yes' or a 'no'. And your answer is...

Do you understand that science deals with weight of evidence rather than proof? Is this what you mean when you ask for proof, or do you mean what is meant in mathematics when proofs are offered? This is quite important, because if you mean the latter then you are going to be disappointed.

Now, can you present the evidence on this thread that shows that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry? That would be a 'yes' or a 'no'. And your answer is......?

 

[lordkalvan]

Patterson's words are what they are. He spoke the truth - get over it. You are out of control. You are falsely accusing me out of desperation and you cannot accept the truth presented by Patterson or Gee. I will check back on this forum from time to time to see if our other friend can actually come up with the evidence he claims he has but there is no reason discussing this topic with you any longer. Your posts are going in circles and you remain confused.

The creationist quote mine and misrepresentation of Dr Patterson is one of the most notorious going the rounds. Gee is also quote mined to support an argument that he is not making. It is always best, when you are getting your head handed to you in a hat, to declare victory and decamp. You have quite failed to counter any of Barbarian's arguments and evidence with anything more than repetitions of mantras, unsupported assertions and the equivalent of 'Nuh-uh.' It's quite sad that you seem to regard this as constituting reasoned argument.