[_ Old Earth _] Just curious..

[zeke]

That was just your attempt to evade the question.

Where's your promised lineage - missing in action again?

 

[Barbarian]

Where's your promised lineage

I said I'd see if I could find you a transitional. You pretended I promised a "lineage" in order to dodge my question. So you're up. I showed you a transitional (learn what the word means, if you want to know why it is) and now it's your job to find one that is between groups not evolutionarily related.

You see, the transitionals where they should be, and the lack of them where they should not be, are both compelling evidence for evolution.

 

[zeke]

If I can show you a series of fossils, arranged in time in the rocks, in which the differences between two adjacent ones is less than is seen between many living species today, will you admit that is a lineage?

Here's the real deal - you boasted you can take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage? Your boasting has put you in way over your head. You need to do what you said you could do - provide a fossil lineage from the alleged common ancestor of man and chimp and trace it back to man. Gee says you can't do it "scientifically" because it can't be tested. I agree with Gee.

You're up. Can you do it (3rd request). If you can't do it don't run away or change the subject - be a man and just say you can't do it. We will understand your dilemma.

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time​

 

[lordkalvan]

You may want to research the Darwinian, "horse sequence" hoax. One of many.

You may want to detail this alleged 'Darwinian "horse sequence" hoax' and explain what it proposes, why it is a hoax and where it specifies a specific fossil claimed as directly ancestral to either another specific fossil or an identified living individual. Given your reluctance and/or inability to substantiate many of your other various claims and assertions when requested to do so, however, I rather doubt you will do this.

 

[lordkalvan]

I misrepresent no one my friend....

You still haven't earned the privilege of that form of address, I'm afraid. I find it instructive that you are unwilling to honour my request in this matter.

... I correctly noted that Henry Gee was a Darwinist. That indicates he believes via faith in the many myths of Darwinism.

Unsupported assertions, that 'Darwinism' amounts to 'many myths' and that Gee 'believes' in them 'via faith.' Given that in the rebuttal to the quotemine that you have posted he references the evidence that supports his views, your assertion appears to have little or no merit.

The quote I provided accurately states his intent quite well - and in context. He correctly states that for one to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. I agree with Gee.

So do you agree with his published comment that the use of these edited words from his book amounts to a quotemine? I note you do not tell us where you sourced the quote from, nor what is excluded from the quote by the ellipses, nor what the context of the quote is. I take this to mean that you sourced it second-hand and that you are therefore not directly responsible for the quote mine, though the fact that you continue to reference it in the light of the author's own criticisms of those who so misrepresent his views does not speak very highly of your intellectual honesty.

Do you not agree with his statement regarding deep-time?

I agree with what Gee tells us himself in his remarks on this (and other) quote mines by creationist websites and writers.

For the record - Barbarian thinks he can do what Gee says cannot be done - scientifically. Can you help the Barbarian in his folly?

More unsubstantiated assertions: that what you claim Gee says cannot be done is what Gee intended to convey in his comments, that Barbarian thinks that he can do what you claim Gee says cannot be done and that this amounts to folly on Barbarian's part.

 

[Barbarian]

Here's the real deal - you boasted you can take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage?

No, you just made that up to dodge the question I asked. I purposely didn't represent it as a lineage to deny you the excuse of accusing me of evolutionary assumptions. I just asked you to show me two major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I'd see if I could find a transitional. And I did. Then I challenged you to find two groups not said to be related, that had such a transitional. And you cut and ran. For reasons everyone understands.

Your boasting has put you in way over your head. You need to do what you said you could do - provide a fossil lineage from the alleged common ancestor of man and chimp and trace it back to man.

Show us where I said I would do that. Keep in mind, the moderators are rather patient here, but their patience isn't infinite.

So now, it's up to you to show us a transitional for two groups not said to be closely related. My prediction is that you'll claim I promised a "lineage" again, and evade the question.

 

[zeke]

I agree with what Gee tells us himself in his remarks on this (and other) quote mines by creationist websites and writers.

More unsubstantiated assertions: that what you claim Gee says cannot be done is what Gee intended to convey in his comments, that Barbarian thinks that he can do what you claim Gee says cannot be done and that this amounts to folly on Barbarian's part.

Then you and I are in agreement with Gee -for anyone to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested? Do we also agree that Barbarian thinks he can do what Gee claims cannot be done - scientifically? Barbarian then remains clueless and his non-scientific assertion "carries the same validity as a bedtime story."

 

[lordkalvan]

Then you and I are in agreement with Gee -for anyone to take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested? Do we also agree that Barbarian thinks he can do what Gee claims cannot be done - scientifically? Barbarian then remains clueless and his non-scientific assertion "carries the same validity as a bedtime story."

Please do not try and misrepresent what I say in forlorn efforts to suggest I agree with your arguments. I don't, but you seem prepared to pretend that I do, rather in the same vein as you are prepared to quote mine various scientists to misrepresent them as arguing for something that they are not. of course, if you have simply sourced these quote mines from secondary sources, then the principal fault is not your own; that you continue to insist on the validity of these quote mines when they have been pointed out to you does say something about the intellectual rigour you bring to this discussion.

 

[zeke]

Please do not try and misrepresent what I say in forlorn efforts to suggest I agree with your arguments. I don't, but you seem prepared to pretend that I do, rather in the same vein as you are prepared to quote mine various scientists to misrepresent them as arguing for something that they are not. of course, if you have simply sourced these quote mines from secondary sources, then the principal fault is not your own; that you continue to insist on the validity of these quote mines when they have been pointed out to you does say something about the intellectual rigour you bring to this discussion.

Actually, my friend it is you who misrepresents me whcih calls into question your intellectual rigor. I quote Gee in context and fully agree with his position regarding taking a line of fossils and claiming they represent a lineage. He correctly points out that such a notion is folly and not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. Is this a position on which you disagree?

Barbarian boasts he can provide such a lineage between chimp, man and a common ancestor of both - a boast that he has failed to present on this thread. Maybe you can give him some help if you think such a feat can be demonstrated - scientifically.

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time​

 

[lordkalvan]

Actually, my friend it is you who misrepresents me whcih calls into question your intellectual rigor. I quote Gee in context and fully agree with his position regarding taking a line of fossils and claiming they represent a lineage. He correctly points out that such a notion is folly and not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

Again, I am not your friend; please desist from addressing me so. I have given you chapter and verse where Gee himself denies the intent you wish to import to his quoted words, words which you have not, by any stretch, provided the relevant context of - but then as you probably sourced them at second hand, why would you be expected to know this context.

Is this a position on which you disagree?

I agree with what Gee wrote when he himself refuted the interpretation you and others attempt to put on his words.

Barbarian boasts he can provide such a lineage between chimp, man and a common ancestor of both - a boast that he has failed to present on this thread. Maybe you can give him some help if you think such a feat can be demonstrated - scientifically

As Barbarian has pointed out, and as you have quite failed to demonstrate otherwise, he has done no such thing. So why do you continue to misrepresent him?

"...no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us after the fact. ...To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." ~ Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time​

Repeating a misrepresentative quote mine does not make it any less of a misrepresentative quote mine.

 

[Barbarian]

Actually, my friend it is you who misrepresents me

Well, let's see who does that...

Zeke declares:

Barbarian boasts he can provide such a lineage between chimp, man and a common ancestor of both

Show us that. Remember when I told you there would be consequences for that kind of behavior? Now you're in it. Show us where I promised a "lineage."

I showed you a transitional between chimps and humans. As you saw, Australopithecines are precisely intermeditate. Your problem is explaining why so many of these transitionals were predicted by evolutionary theory, but why none have been found where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any.

Remember, you're being called on your falsehood about me promising a "lineage." Show us where I promised that for humans and chimps.

 

[zeke]

Show us that. Remember when I told you there would be consequences for that kind of behavior? Now you're in it. Show us where I promised a "lineage."

Go back and review your post on this thread - #5 page 1. The same post where you were disputing what Gee correctly stated. The same post where you erroneously stated Gee "is a writer, but is not a scientist." Gee is both a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. Does that not qualify for a scientist in your world? You remain confused.

Are now admitting you cannot provide a line of fossils between man, chimp and your alleged common ancestor between man and chimp? Remember - dead-end ape lines do not prove common ancestry.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Show us that. Remember when I told you there would be consequences for that kind of behavior? Now you're in it. Show us where I promised a "lineage."

Go back and review your post on this thread (#5)

Well, let's take a look...

Nope. Not there. Never said it. So that's your admission you lied?

Not surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.






. The post where you were disputing what Gee correctly stated.

 

[zeke]

I agree with what Gee wrote when he himself refuted the interpretation you and others attempt to put on his words.

But my interpretation is Gee's interpretation my friend - one cannot take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage - such folly is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested. Do you still disagree with that assessment? Can you prove it wrong?

 

[zeke]

Nope. Not there. Never said it. So that's your admission you lied?

No lie mate - your intent is clear. This then is your admission that there is no lineage between man, chimp and a common ancestor. Very good - you are progressing. One more Darwinian myth gone.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Show us that. Remember when I told you there would be consequences for that kind of behavior? Now you're in it. Show us where I promised a "lineage."

Go back and review your post on this thread (#5)
Well, let's take a look...

Nope. Not there. Never said it. So that's your admission you lied?

Not surprising. Disappointing, but not surprising.

No lie mate - your intent is clear.

You wanted to make a point so badly, you lied about what I said. Dodging that isn't going to help you now. Learn from it and go on. Remember, no matter how hard a position you're in, you can always make it worse by lying.

This then is your admission that there is no lineage between man, chimp and a common ancestor.

Nope. I'm just pointing out that you lied about what I said. I purposely did not say anything about a lineage, so that we could focus on what a transitional is. I never "boasted" that I could show a "lineage." You got a little overeager, and lied about it. Learn from it and do better in the future.

 

[zeke]

Nope. I'm just pointing out that you lied about what I said.

As noted - no lie - your intent in the post is apparent. Just as you erroneously stated that Gee was not a scientist - he is a scientist. Educate yourself.

The question still begs - can you provide a lineage between man, chimp and a common ancestor or was Gee correct --- "to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."

Don't run - show us your lineage or simply admit there is no lineage. We will consider your silence your admission that there is no lineage.

 

[Barbarian]

No one is interested in your excuses or diversions. Since you twice declined to support your statement about what I said, you'll just have to live with it. Remember, no matter how bad it seems, you can always make it worse by lying.

Since you want to change the subject, it appears you've conceded the existence of transitionals between humans and other apes. So be it.

show us your lineage or simply admit there is no lineage.

Well, let's test that next. Here's a few skulls:

Classify them as "ape", "human" or "transitional", and tell us how you decided.

Good luck.

 

[lordkalvan]

But my interpretation is Gee's interpretation my friend...

You continue to disrespect me by addressing me in a manner I have requested you not to. Are you being deliberately provocative?

It is instructive of the apparent lack of honesty in your claims that you continue to insist that Gee's words be used to represent an argument that he has clearly denied their relevance to. Why do you do this? Do you imagine that you understand Gee's intention better than he does? Here again is what he said specifically about the subject:

There is no question that evolution is true, and that we have ancestors, and an ancestry. The very existence of the fossil record is proof enough of this.

Perhaps you can explain how this comment supports the claim you made about Gee's argument when first you made it?

In passing, I note you have still failed to tell us where you sourced the quote from, what is omitted by the ellipses in the quote and what Gee actually concludes from the fossil record? Nor have you supported your assertions, that 'Darwinism' amounts to 'many myths' and that Gee 'believes' in them 'via faith.' And nor have you detailed the alleged 'Darwinian "horse sequence" hoax' and explain what it proposes, why it is a hoax and where it specifies a specific fossil claimed as directly ancestral to either another specific fossil or an identified living individual.

One cannot take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage - such folly is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested.

Clearly you misuse the intent of Gee's argument, which is that specific ancestral relationships between fossils cannot be inferred, not that the fossil record fails to provide evidence that transitional features aren't ones that support the hypothesis that later species are evolutionarily descended from earlier ones, i.e. that, in Gee's own words, 'we have ancestors, and an ancestry'.

Do you still disagree with that assessment? Can you prove it wrong?

Like Gee himself, I disagree with the spin you wish to impart to it so that you can co-opt it as support for an argument that Gee has no truck with. Perhaps you can tell us whether you disagree with Gee's comment to that effect and why:

The sad thing is that no matter how hard I fight, the creationists will still take quotes out of context, because that’s the way they do what they call ‘science’. Like all pseudoscientists and woo-merchants, they don’t investigate anything systematically, just pick out the things they like and discard anything else – even flat statements to the contrary.

Source for Gee quotes as previously referenced.

 

[zeke]

No one is interested in your excuses or diversions. Since you twice declined to support your statement about what I said, you'll just have to live with it.

Does your Magisterium train you to call those who disagree with you liars? In your post #5 you said you disagreed with Gee. You foolishly stated he was not a scientist. You are looking rather weak. Please explain why you disagree with this respected evolutionary scientist. Does the truth he presents upset your odd world-view?

You said you disagreed with Gee's statement that it is a non-scientific hypothesis to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage.Why do you disagree with his statement? Please be specific so we can see how confused you are. Can you take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage? Is there such a lineage between man and your imagined common ancestor of man and chimp? You refuse to answer that question. Why? What are you afraid of - the truth?

Answer the question - it only requires a yes or no answer. And you answer is? Listen folks -- the sound of silence once again...

Since you want to change the subject, it appears you've conceded the existence of transitionals between humans and other apes.

You remain confused - I admit no such thing and you have never proven there is even one transitional between man and your alleged common ancestor. All you have done is present a dead-end ape, wave you hands in the air and project non-scientific nonsense. Sad. Do you not have the required evidence from science once again? You look rather silly - yes?

Well, let's test that next. Here's a few skulls:

Your skulls simply demonstrate the similarity produced by a common designer. What did you think you were trying to prove? If that is all you have (and it is) you have nothing. Next.