Replies

There's no evidence for evolution--if you're a creationist--in just the same way that there's no evidence against Clinton if you're a Clintonista loyalist.

And you accuse me of "white-hot emotionalism"? Around here, equating someone with the same mindset as a Clintonista loyalist is about the worst insult available.

I won't trade insults with you, especially meaningless ones. I remind you that on a recent thread I was ready to "write my concession speech" on an important aspect of human evolution. In fact I posted those very words. It turned out that the two most critical finds that prompted my retreat were very controversial in their dating. You could not give me any more in that 50-90K critical window.

I remind you of these things because you are quick to accuse me of refusing to see things. The things I am refusing to see ARE NOT THERE. I did not see it on that last thread because the finds you were basing your position on WERE NOT WHAT YOU FIRST THOUGHT THEY WERE. That's all. Its not "white-hot emotion" on my part. Its Facts Vade. Facts.

If you could have shown me even a half-dozen finds whose age was clearly within the time frame under discussion I would have written that speech. Just like I conceded on that fish-amphibian fossil debate almost two years ago.

I DO concede when the facts are clear. You haven't got the facts on your side here. This experiment does not demonstrate what the evos on this thread are claiming it does, and no amount of your fuming and insults can change that. Got it?

Would you ever be willing to write such a speech? Have you ever?

And you accuse me of "white-hot emotionalism"? Around here, equating someone with the same mindset as a Clintonista loyalist is about the worst insult available.

Thread after thread after thread, subject after subject, there turn out to be "other ways" of interpreting the evidence. Anything but evolution. This is just another one. Why am I not allowed to notice what is going on? How could anyone not notice what is going on?

I won't trade insults with you, especially meaningless ones. I remind you that on a recent thread I was ready to "write my concession speech" on an important aspect of human evolution.

I can't tell how big the concession was which you would have made, since you didn't wind up making it. I'm more impressed that, despite accepting an old earth, you don't concede a non-human ancestry for humans. You chose, instead, to defend a 40K gap interval which had Neanderthals but only a couple of controversial non-Neanderthals.

Here's the problem for claiming that you're not really evidence-proof. You use that gap to claim that humans and apes are unconnected and don't intergrade at all in the fossil record. This is the particular array of hard evidence that you were wishing away.

From here.

It was really a two-pronged defense. 1) "There are Neanderthals in there and Neanderthals are offline." 2) "There's a gap in the stuff that can't be shown to be offline."

Point one is feeble. With any fossil series, potentially all of it is offline. Nor is it clear that Neanderthals are offline, despite what you may have heard. The point of the figure is that human and ape skulls intergrade in the fossil record. And my point again is that you refuse to connect dots. I don't think the case you cite reflects well on you at all as someone who is objectively considering and responding to the evidence.

In fact I posted those very words. It turned out that the two most critical finds that prompted my retreat were very controversial in their dating. You could not give me any more in that 50-90K critical window.

And at least in your own mind you escaped recognizing the obvious implications of the evidence. I leave it for the reader to examine the figure above and wonder if he or she would do the same. Except for the modern chimpanzee on the upper left, all skulls are in chronological order (upper left to lower right) as they appear in the fossil record.

I remind you of these things because you are quick to accuse me of refusing to see things.

Let's see how you helped yourself on this thread.

1) You read the main article and announced that the study had neither grown feathers on a lizard or scales on a bird, although the latter would have been a loss of function yada yada yada. Anyone who read the article knows what the study was, and by elimination what it was not. Duh!
2) You commended gore for posting facts, facts, facts after he set up a strawman involving Shh and spent several posts knocking it over. The article does not mischaracterize the role of Shh. Moreover, gore's posts concerning its varied role in vertebrate development do not in any way undermine the study reported here. You would rather slap high-fives with a creo who is wrong than correct or ignore him.

The things I am refusing to see ARE NOT THERE.

The evidence against Clinton wasn't there, either. There was no evidence. Half the callers to CSPAN said so.

If you could have shown me even a half-dozen finds whose age was clearly within the time frame under discussion I would have written that speech.

Would you have conceded human ancestry from apes? Or just that there are fossils in that gap?

Just like I conceded on that fish-amphibian fossil debate almost two years ago.

I have no memory of this. Are you saying you actually conceded and still concede that amphibians arose from fish but are hiding from a rather better evidence trail for the ape ancestry of humans? What's the big deal about humans?

I DO concede when the facts are clear. You haven't got the facts on your side here. This experiment does not demonstrate what the evos on this thread are claiming it does, and no amount of your fuming and insults can change that. Got it?

The experiment suggests a scenario for feather evolution from scales. That is true even though you don't like it.

Would you ever be willing to write such a speech? Have you ever?

Being a basic screw-up, I have had to eat crow on details being argued many times. I don't like the feeling of having the facts against me. I thus try no matter how it may hurt to emulate science as a whole by staying as square with the evidence as possible. OTOH, I have not had to eat crow on major evidence for creation/ID or against evolution. There isn't any.

And you accuse me of "white-hot emotionalism"? Around here, equating someone with the same mindset as a Clintonista loyalist is about the worst insult available.

Yes, and those who in someway challenge the Darwininian dogma are accused of building strawman arguments and knocking them down. The accusers are the grass artisans. They place unspoken words into the statements of the reluctant.

The simple question to be asked is how any findings in this experiment would have been accepted as evidence against Darwininianism? Had the experiment failed miserably to do anything it would not have made it out the door. If it had caused an arm to form, the experiment would have been marched out in fanfare as definitive "proof" of Darwininianism. In any case, using the Darwininians own definition, what was done was not science. It had no stated null hypothesis to accept or reject, thus being unfalsifiable it becomes non-science.(by the definition of Darwininians)