Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Such imprecisions of language. Are lizards extinct?
None of the skulls in that picture belongs to a lizard.
You do not know what you are talking about.
The boy got some 'splainin' to do.
Perhaps I distract with side issues. I would far prefer you explain what "junk science" is and why we cannot infer that something is exactly what it looks like. Shouldn't that usually be the default assumption?
Not at all. Creationists like to take it and put their own spin on it but the concept was born with evolutionary biologists and the terms were coined by evolutionary biologists. Filipchenko (Dobzhansky's mentor) originated the term and called for theories to explain the distinction between micro- and macro-evolutionary phenomena, in particular the difference between inter-and intra-species level evolution. Dobzhansky popularized the term and called the distinction one of scaling. The debate, framed by evolutionists then, still continues today, with famous evolutionists like Wallace, Simpson, Gould, and Stanley on the strong distinction side of the issue. Note that speciation patterns like punctuated equilibrium, cladogenesis, and punctuated anagenesis are all macro-evoutionary phenomena.
I've pointed this business out a number of times. Your continued adherence to the falsehood that these terms are creationist inventions plays into tallhappy's point that what goes on here is not science but, well, something else.
Secondly, I conceded the point on human tails.
The vestigial tail nonsense had come up over a year ago and I went into a long explanation then, but just recently you posted another picture without refuting it as anything vestigial. A concession, apparently, is meaningless.
And as for the speciation definition, as far as I can tell there are several competing definitions of speciation, which the creationists gleefully glom onto so they can change their definitions of macro- and micro-evolution to fit their particular arguments. I've typically stuck with the "unable to mate with any other species" definition.
That's loosely the biological species definition and I agree with that. I'm specifically referring to the evolution of species definition at the top of your resource thread. A definition such as that needs to be broader or not there at all. I've pointed this out before, I've pointed it out to "physicist", but I have seen no changes. I don't care enough to pursue it, but don't pretend that you always make an effort to track down the proper information.
Mr. tallhappy, on the other hand, has been horribly unforthcoming with any actual information, evidently relegating himself to sitting on the sidelines carping.
I don't support tallhappy's approach at all. He reminded me of some of the experience I had earlier on these threads.
I was part of that. I look at some of those threads now and see we were talking past each other more than I realized.
I think I was unclear as to the nature of how the debate is framed here. So I came at it largely from a tallhappy type angle. The discussion always turned into a "yes, but that doesn't prove creationism".
I'm having a terrible time of it. There are so many creationists I won't respond to that I'm running out of material. I'm hoping some new creationists will drop in. It may be that we need a new thread to encourage them. Few people want to jump in and tackle a thread with over 1,000 posts. Until then, I lurk ...
Thank you.
I am dubious those are the bones in question when saying lizard jaws became them.
Asked vaderetro if those are the bonese he means.
These are the boneses I meanses.
You can cite the blazing controversy around this "junk science" interpretation of a few bones, right? I mean, the literature must abound. (Hint: Try ICR.org, or AnswersinGenesis.org)
It's dinosaur stuff today. It's like doing re-annealing to try and analyze a new DNA sequence today.
But worse. Bone guys had little to work on, so their imaginations can be indulged.
Get back to me when the developmental payhways in the various organisms are examined.
That's a good start -- what genes are involved in the "ear bones" formation?
What is iffy? Has homology been discredited? Are there too many gaps?
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.