[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[Barbarian]

Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the
horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

Transitioning into WHAT?

Other taxa. As Dr. Wise says, these many,many transitional series are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

 

[Barbarian]

Phylogenetics as evidence for evo is circular reasoning

Not according to your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise. He's not the only YE creationist honest enough to admit the facts:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.
...
Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

 

[Barbarian]

And your earnest YouTuber gets one thing right. Natural Selection is not evolution. It is an agency of evolution. And evolution can proceed without natural selection. It's just that without natural selection, evolution has no direction.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Suppose there are two alleles in a population for which neither is more fit in the environment than the other. So their frequencies will just change randomly. Suppose the environment changes so that one is now less fit than the other. Natural selection will then tend to remove the less fit allele, making it less common, or even eliminating it altogether.

But the he seems to confuse how this works. And so he makes some rather silly conlusions.

 

[Barbarian]

This is how people assumed whales are fish and bats are birds.

Whales look so different from fish (blow holes, big, have bristly mouth to filter)
And bats are ugly little creatures, they have no feathers, in fact the only bird-ish resemblance is the wings.

And yet the Bible says bats are birds. And whales until recently were assumed to be fish.

And besides, what you cited Could be reality and make perfect sense under EvilLotion.

No. You've confused analogy with homology again. Darwin had an entire chapter about the difference. "Looks like" isn't a good guide to phylogenetics.

This is why YE creationists have such a hard time with reality.

 

[Barbarian]

So this relies on evo assumptions to be true.
Start at evo, conclude at evo.
Circular reasoning.

Not according to your fellow YE creationists Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood. They are honest and knowledgeable and admit the facts.

Ignorance is your enemy.

 

[Barbarian]

creationists assumed that black people were not human.

quote? which one/s?

An ambitious institution-builder and fundraiser as well as one of the most renowned scientists of his generation, he founded the Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ) and trained a generation of naturalists in the precise methods of observation and categorization developed in Europe. His wife Elizabeth Cary Agassiz, the other half of this Harvard power couple, was co-founder and first president of the Society for the Collegiate Instruction of Women, the precursor of Radcliffe.

Unfortunately, Agassiz chose the wrong side in what turned out to be the 19th century’s greatest scientific controversy, and as a result ended his career as something of an anachronism. The controversy was over Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” which was published in 1859 and soon won over the younger generation of scientists and intellectuals, including most of Agassiz’s students.

A tale of two scholars: The Darwin debate at Harvard — Harvard Gazette

Few people have left a more indelible imprint on Harvard than Louis Agassiz.

news.harvard.edu

..,Harvard’s Louis Agassiz, were proponents of “polygenism,” which posited that human races were distinct species. This theory was supported by pseudoscientific methods like craniometry, the measurement of human skulls, which supposedly proved that white people were biologically superior to Blacks. Early statistical health data was weaponized against Black Americans in the late 1800s, as it was used to claim they were predisposed to disease and destined for extinction.

Scientific Racism

Since enslaved people were first brought to this country, promoters of anti-Black racism and white supremacy have co-opted the authority of science to justify racial inequality. A history of pseudoscientific methods “proving” white biological superiority and flawed social studies used to show...

library.harvard.edu

 

[KV-44-v1]

nonsense

EDIT: remove_word_"nonsense"
Replacement: + "fodder"

 

[Paul E. Michael]

No.

See post #469.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If you feel you have to pretend I said something I didn't say to make a point, isn't that a clue for all of us?

I've not pretended about what you said, nor have I had to pretend about what you said, nor do I feel I have to do so. Got it? Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

 

[Barbarian]

I've not pretended about what you said,

Well, let's take a look...

Oh, nice try. Sorry, though: it wasn't a question. Blowing more Darwinistpeak smoke in my face is not going to hide the glaring fact that you contradict yourself by saying that the group of all animals without backbones is not the group of animals that it is.

Again, if you feel the need to claim that I said something I did not, that's tells us a lot about you, doesn't it? I pointed out that it's a paraphyletic group. Which it is. Why pretend otherwise? It's still up on the board here.

Try to do better.

You're assuming that all groups are taxonomic groups. Do you even read what you put up here?

Learn what a paraphyletic group is. You actually were very helpful here, for those who might be confused about the terminology, giving me the opportunity to clarify your confusion.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Here, you're assuming that all groups are taxonomic groups.

Here, you're assuming, wrongly, that not all groups are taxonomic groups. I get that it belongs to your war against truth and logic -- your Darwinstspeak language game -- to do such. But, surely you're not silly enough to imagine that people who are not your fellow Darwinists are obligated to play along with your Darwinistspeak language game, are you?

Again, if you feel the need to claim that I said something I did not

Again, I have not claimed that you said something you did not. Rather, I have pointed out that you said something you said. Let's take a look...

Oh, nice try. Sorry, though: it wasn't a question. Blowing more Darwinistpeak smoke in my face is not going to hide the glaring fact that you contradict yourself by saying that the group of all animals without backbones is not the group of animals that it is. Also, that taxonomic group -- the group of all animals without backbones -- happens to be the group of all animals that are neither ancestors nor descendants of any of the animals constituting the group of all animals with backbones. For you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a taxonomic group is for you to deny that the group of all animals without backbones is a group.

You denying the fact that the taxonomic group of all animals without backbones is a taxonomic group is you denying the fact that the taxonomic group of all animals without backbones is a group. Why pretend otherwise? Your denial of that fact is still up on the board here:

"Invertebrates" is not a taxonomic group.

Since any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group, that's you denying that the taxonomic group of all animals without backbones is not a group. Why pretend otherwise?

Try to do better.

 

[Barbarian]

Here, you're assuming, wrongly, that not all groups are taxonomic groups.

For example, in the bible, the group of animals that fly (birds and bats) is not a taxonomic group. The group of animals that are not orange is not a taxonomic group. The group of animals that don't have backbones is not a taxonomic group.

Do you understand why?

(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.

Taxonomic group

taxonomic group (Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.

www.biologyonline.com

The term invertebrates is not always precise among non-biologists since it does not accurately describe a taxon in the same way that Arthropoda, Vertebrata or Manidae do. Each of these terms describes a valid taxon, phylum, subphylum or family. "Invertebrata" is a term of convenience, not a taxon

Invertebrate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I see how this can be confusing for someone not familiar with biology. But it is what it is.

Since any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group

See above. You're just mistaken.

that's you denying that the taxonomic group of all animals without backbones is not a group.

I showed you that it's not a taxonomic group.

Again, if you feel the need to claim that I said something I did not, that's tells us a lot about you, doesn't it? I pointed out that it's a paraphyletic group, not a taxon. Which it is. Why pretend otherwise? It's still up on the board here.

Biology definition:
A taxon is a term used for any taxonomic unit that is recognized or defined by at least one of the nomenclatural codes (ICN, ICZN, ICNP, ICNCP, ICPN, ICVCN). It refers to any group or rank in a biological classification into which related organisms are classified, for example, a phylum, order, family, genus, or species. Etymology: New Latin, back-formation from taxonomy.

Taxon

Taxon (plural taxa) is a unit in the taxonomic classification system that has been recognized by at least one of the official nomenclature codes.

www.biologyonline.com

 

[Barbarian]

I've not pretended about what you said, nor have I had to pretend about what you said, nor do I feel I have to do so. Got it? Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

You could be badly confused, which is what I assumed, and is why I didn't assume it was dishonesty on your part.

 

[Uncle J]

If "any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group", then "animals I've owned as pets" must be a taxonomic group!

 

[Barbarian]

If "any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group", then "animals I've owned as pets" must be a taxonomic group!

Supposedly, in China, one classification was "animals belonging to the emperor."

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Learn what a paraphyletic group is.

Learn that rationally-thinking people are under no obligation to play along with your Darwinistspeak language game. Your phrase, "paraphyletic group", is merely one more piece of Darwinistspeak nonsense verbiage, by which you advertise your Darwinist false assumption that all animals have ancestors in common with each other.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

If "any and every group of animals, without exception, is a taxonomic group", then "animals I've owned as pets" must be a taxonomic group!

You got it, Professor!

 

[Uncle J]

Supposedly, in China, one classification was "animals belonging to the emperor."

And conversely, I guess "animals I've never owned" would be yet another taxonomic group.

 

[Barbarian]

But since "taxonomic group" has a specific meaning, Only certain groups of animals are taxonomic groups.

Taxonomic group
(Science: zoology) A taxon with all its subordinate taxa and their individuals, for example the taxonomic group insecta consists of all insects and their taxa.

The term invertebrates is not always precise among non-biologists since it does not accurately describe a taxon in the same way that Arthropoda, Vertebrata or Manidae do. Each of these terms describes a valid taxon, phylum, subphylum or family. "Invertebrata" is a term of convenience, not a taxon

 

[Paul E. Michael]

You could be badly confused, which is what I assumed,

But I'm not confused, and so your assumption makes you wrong, again.

and is why I didn't assume it was dishonesty on your part.

You'd indeed be wrong in assuming I was/am dishonest.