Posted on 09/26/2001 4:31:59 PM PDT by I_Publius
You possess all the intellectual dexterity of a slug.
Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (late Mississippian) -- Classic labyrinthodont-amphibian skull and teeth, but with reptilian vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits. Still has fish skull hinge. Amphibian ankle. 5-toed hand and a 2-3-4-5-3 (almost reptilian) phalangeal count.
Consider yourself slugged in the nose with the fact of a big ol' transitional specimen - one of many, BTW.
Now your turn. Please provide me with your evidence that some animal, say a giraffe, was made by God, or crafty leprechauns and popped into existence in it's present form.
Until then, I'm betting on Samotherium and it's descendents.
Did I say I had 'proof' that some specific animal was made by God? I don't think so, ace! I have merely argues that however, say a giraffe, 'popped into existence', it wasn't by way of evolution.
Neither creation/intelligent design nor evolution can be proven with absolute certainty because no person living observed it at the beginning. On the other hand, it has been clearly established that macro-evolution cannot explain the variety of life forms. I have no problem with adaptation, a.k.a. micro-evolution.
Once it is established that evolution fails the test, one must look to another model to explain how we got here. One other model is the creation/intelligent design model, but I can't think of a third; can you?
The biggest reason that many evolutionists refuse to reject evolution is not so much that they are convinced of its truth. It is more that if they discard evolution, they would then need another explanation; and the only other answer is the existance of a Supreme Being, i.e. God, who created the world and all that is in it.
As for leprechauns, you are the one who brought that subject into the debate; not me! You did this only in an attempt to distract attention away from the fact that you cannot defend evolution with a logical argument. In an ironic sort of way, your mere mention of leprechauns indicates that there just may be some sort of unseen 'Power', sort of like a God, don't you think?
No it hasn't. Micro-evolution is a fact, and yet to deny the logical result of micro-changes compounded over time is willful ignorance.
Once it is established that evolution fails the test, one must look to another model to explain how we got here.
Yeah, once it does, if it does, but you haven't. You failed to make evolution fail the test. Creationists continue to mis-apply/quote the 2nd law of thermodynamics, having little concept of open/closed systems - talk about red herrings! They point to one species of fossil that hasn't been discovered yet and think that somehow that this is supposed to nullify the other 30 species in a row which evidence the reality of evolution.
Evolution has DNA and a fossil record on it's side. Creation has....nothing. One other model is the creation/intelligent design model, but I can't think of a third; can you?
Yes. A third alternative is that the universe is just a vast viral infection on the back of a giant turtle. See how easy it is? If you can't reason with the evidence confronting you, just make something up! Creation isn't a scientific model. It is a quaint fantasy for those who are too lazy to examine specimens in detail - specimens which bear striking resemblence to one another in nearby strata, but which become more diverse and disparate in strata which is farther away vertically. Creation "science" is just something conjured up out of pure belief. I can throw transitional fossils in your face all day long, and you will continue to say that they don't exist, tho' exist they do. Since your model requires one to deactivate one's ability to reason, if fails as science. Hence, it shares the same "can't prove a negative" status as magic leprechauns popping fully formed animals into existence.
Are you suggesting this as a third alternative? It seems so. You must be a brilliant man, because no one else has suggested this possibility.
Creation isn't a scientific model. It is a quaint fantasy for those who are too lazy to examine specimens in detail - specimens which bear striking resemblence to one another in nearby strata, but which become more diverse and disparate in strata which is farther away vertically.
As opposed to finding details where they don't exist, except in the minds of elovutionary religious zealots?
Creation "science" is just something conjured up out of pure belief. I can throw transitional fossils in your face all day long, and you will continue to say that they don't exist, tho' exist they do.
I believe fossils exist. The transitional part is another matter. I have a curious question. Why do you call them transitional fossils? Shouldn't they simply be "fossils". The word "transitional" seems to imply that there was no real species to which they belong; an obvious impossibility. To what species to these "transitional fossils' belong. Certainly they must belong to either one species or another!
Since your model requires one to deactivate one's ability to reason, if fails as science. Hence, it shares the same "can't prove a negative" status as magic leprechauns popping fully formed animals into existence.
No one has ever successfully accused me of unable to reason; and you will not be the first! You are correct that one "can't disprove a negative, but what we have here is something different. It is quite possible to disprove a positive, even if one cannot prove the opposite. Certainly the the 'positive' assertions of the claims of evolution is subject to being disproven. As I have said on many occasions, the mere disproving of evolution does not make the creation model true in and of itself, but it does make the creation model more viable that the evolution model. Please recall that I have never claimed that belief in creation/intelligent design does not require a degree of faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires much, much more faith; a reality most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge. I see you are no different.
It is a sign of weakness when one refuses to acknowledge problem areas in one's arguments. The best way to deal weaknesses is to admit them and then provide a reasoned explanation. The reason most evolutionists do not do this is because there is no explanation available that would permit an intelligent person to continue with their faith in evolution. It seems they just decide to ignore the problems of evolution. Ignorance is bliss.
I've run off people in these debates who are much smarter than you. On top of that, I am totally unimpressed with mere unsupported statements about my intelligence by intellectual light-weights like you. I have an IQ in excess of 150, so you ignorant claims concerning my mental abilities are a waste of time. Just last Friday, I had three attorneys and a judge spinning like tops during a 2.5 hour hearing, simply because I knew the law and the court rules far better than they did and how they applied in my case. They probably still don't realize it, but I got everything out of that hearing that I wanted, and much, nuch more.
Of course I will, and I will show you where, in your own words how you have failed to reason sufficiently.
You are correct that one "can't disprove a negative, but what we have here is something different.
No, this is precisely the point. You are demanding two very uneven levels evidentiary proof. Of Evolution, you demand it be proved as firmly as any mathematical Law, and for Creation you demand that it be accepted as Law, sans any, and in many cases, in direct contradiction to the evidence. Your entire theory of Creation is based on requiring others to disprove a negative. Conversely, you have asserted that there are flaws in some of the many evolutionary mechanisms that have been observed and theorized upon, and from that, have concluded that evolution itself must not exist. As the supreme logician that you confess yourself to being, I'll let you figure out which error in logic you have just committed.
It is quite possible to disprove a positive, even if one cannot prove the opposite. Certainly the the 'positive' assertions of the claims of evolution is subject to being disproven.
It is certainly subject to disproval. Many other scientists have in fact, disproven earlier assumptions, with branches of the evolutionary bush being tweaked here and there as new fossils are discovered, but never disproving the existence of the bush itself. You have certainly failed to disprove anything here.
As I have said on many occasions, the mere disproving of evolution does not make the creation model true in and of itself, but it does make the creation model more viable that the evolution model.
A) You failed to disprove evolution. B) I supplied evidence for evolution. C) Evidence FOR something has more weight than lack of evidence against somethine else. Therefore, evolution remains the more viable model. Sophistry will not make it otherwise.
Please recall that I have never claimed that belief in creation/intelligent design does not require a degree of faith. The problem with evolution is that it requires much, much more faith; a reality most evolutionists refuse to acknowledge. I see you are no different.
Faith is required to believe something for which there is no evidence. The degree of faith required for one to believe that camels are an offshoot of Poebrotherium is much lower than that required to believe that God just decided to make camels one day and kill off all the Poebrotherium, or that they didn't make it to the ark. What you see in me matters not a fig to me.
It is a sign of weakness when one refuses to acknowledge problem areas in one's arguments. The best way to deal weaknesses is to admit them and then provide a reasoned explanation.
Good. Admit that Creation is just a story about your faith, and that it does not meet the standards of science.
The reason most evolutionists do not do this is because there is no explanation available that would permit an intelligent person to continue with their faith in evolution. It seems they just decide to ignore the problems of evolution. Ignorance is bliss.
Well, I'm ignorant and happy, to be sure, but I fully acknowledge that the various mechanisms which have been theorized to explain evolution are subject to more refinement. Good science requires it in fact. That's what science does, it keeps asking the questions and subjecting itself to peer review. Obviously people much more intelligent than I, and maybe even smarter than you, have reviewed your complaints and have found them lacking. Therefore your argument that smart people must fall away from the church of science to meet your criteria for intelligence is laughable at best.
I've run off people in these debates who are much smarter than you. On top of that, I am totally unimpressed with mere unsupported statements about my intelligence by intellectual light-weights like you. I have an IQ in excess of 150, so you ignorant claims concerning my mental abilities are a waste of time. Then why are you trying so hard to convince me that you are? Shouldn't I just assume it from your clear reasoning? *snicker*
Just last Friday, I had three attorneys and a judge spinning like tops during a 2.5 hour hearing, simply because I knew the law and the court rules far better than they did and how they applied in my case. They probably still don't realize it, but I got everything out of that hearing that I wanted, and much, nuch more.
This autobiographical testimony to your intellectual prowess and humility is simply wonderful! (argument by non-sequiter?) Being that I'm an intellectual lightweight (and my friends will join me in being all too eager to admit this) I don't see what your confession of cerebral phosphorescence in a courtroom has to do with the evidence presented here so far that Creation is anything more than an appeal to ignorance? (That is, another common error in logic).
The Tree of Evolution stands upon a preponderance of genetic and fossil evidence, and the Faith of Creation stands apart as an allegorical tale.
To: Wm Bach:
My, my; this is quite an admission. What only a few posts ago was a claim of conclusive evidence has now been relegated to a mere "preponderance of the evidence". Obviously my superior logic and intellect is starting to have its desired effect.
For you to state that evolution is supported by a mere preponderance of the evidence is to admit that there must indeed be substantial evidence in support of the creation model, but in your current view, not quite as much as for evolution.
You have unwittingly admitted that the creation/intelligent design model is plausible. It's just that you don't agree with it, yet!
As you can clearly see, I have made significant inroads to your pitiful attempt to defend evolution. I admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I thought you'd be able to do better than this. Heck, you aren't even as good as Patrick Henry, and he is pathetic. You notice he hasn't been around lately. His admission that he only "sometimes" answers direct questions did him in earlier in this thread.
BTW, exactly when can this imaginary "Tree of Evolution" be found, or is it just a "figment of the evolutionary mind"?
Not with respect to small differences in number.
-Steppin' Jay Gould, Natural History, 1977, p.14.
The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.
Taxonomy is lots like science fiction. It's no good without a wild imagination.
Humans aren't the only species on this planet. The remarks about hermaphroditism (occurs in humans) and parthenogenesis (only claimed human example is J.C.) were just to get you thinking about the possibilities. Unless your concept of "essence" is tied to some physical object it has no meaning. Start with the physical structures and functions and build from there. When you claim there are "essential" differences between men and women or between different species you have to show what those differences are and why they matter. From my perspective the differences are trivial compared to those things that are fundamentally the same. It could be argued that the "essence" of any living thing must be its DNA sequence. If this is so then the essence of a chimp is pretty much the same as the essence of a man. The essence of a women is hardly different from the essence of a man except that the man has a little, tiny Y chromosome that codes for maleness and hairy ears and little else, and the female does not.
Gender modification occurs in some species depending on environmental conditions or the availablity of food. When times are good the best strategy is to be a male and potentially leave lots of offspring by many females. When times are tough it is better to be a female and at least have a chance at reproducing.
Where is thread 2?
My limited understanding is that meiosis is not necessarily prevented but rather that unpaired chromatids can produce cell death at meiosis. This does not always happen however as trisomy 21 (not just the type resulting from a Robertsonian translocation) in humans does not "prevent" meiosis and some viable gametes are produced with the correct haploid number.
Meiosis is not prevented? But it is and at what point the cells senesce I'm not sure.
This does not always happen however as trisomy 21 (not just the type resulting from a Robertsonian translocation) in humans does not "prevent" meiosis and some viable gametes are produced with the correct haploid number.
You are right that occasionally these odd chromosomes slip by. But, as I said before, not unless some unusual events take place. Chromosome 21 is the smallest chromosome (quite small) and acrocentric. 21 hitches a ride via satellite association either with a centromere at another chiasma or with nucleolar particles.
Argumentum ad verecundiam. You based your argument upon your superior intellect, yet have failed to provide evidence FOR Creation, the subject of this debate.
For you to state that evolution is supported by a mere preponderance of the evidence is to admit that there must indeed be substantial evidence in support of the creation model, but in your current view, not quite as much as for evolution.
Now in the first phrase you are committing the fallacy of bifurcation with a side order of fallacy of presupposition. Again, having failed to provide evidence that would outwiegh the preponderance which is on my side, that of Evolution. And in the latter phrase, affirmation of the consequent - another logical fallacy!
You have unwittingly admitted that the creation/intelligent design model is plausible. It's just that you don't agree with it, yet!
Fallacy of presupposition again with a dash of argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The scientific evidence for Evolution is manifold. You have failed, so far, to demonstrate any scientific evidence for Creation. Therefore Evolution is the preferred scientific model to describe speciation on this planet.
I believe hermaphroditism is much more common amongst hyenas.
Which has you more frustrated - having gotten yourself Sunday clothes all muddy wrestling with this pig, or the fact that this pig just beat you at chess?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.