Ftk
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 24 2007,21:16) | FtK:
| Quote |
You know what, Wesley? This doesn't explain much to me. You just seem hell bent on pointing out that I'm ignorant....so, I'll give you that point. I don't know squat about this particular topic, so briefly explain. You don't need to start a whole new thread...just tell me what you're trying to get at and how it is evidence for common descent. Try to talk in laymen's terms if possible.
Also, you didn't provide any pictures of orchids evolving with noticeable changes in morphology.
|
I haven't noticed that explaining things in terms FtK understands actually makes any difference in FtK's behavior. So it seems to me that the point to be made is that FtK is an unreliable source of information.
Nor is the point something about the broad topic of common descent. What is at issue in this exchange is FtK's flat assertion that macroevolutionary change doesn't happen and that humans cannot even induce such changes. As it turns out, humans have multiple ways of inducing precisely the sort of changes that FtK asserted cannot happen and cannot be approached by humans. Confronted with that news, FtK further questioned whether polyploidy happened outside of flowering plants, a clear digression, but one with a clear empirical counterexample.
Even some cursory web browsing starting with "hyla versicolor" as a search phrase reveals quite a number of sources that explains what tetraploidy is and how H. versicolor is related to its parent species. That work has been done, and is readily available. Many of those pages offer the bibliographic data for the peer-reviewed articles that examine this example of vertebrate tetraploidy. So unless FtK wants to come to some sort of arrangement for her tutelage (I accept PayPal), I will give the demanded free tutorial (which will be ignored) a pass.
Yes, I provided no picture book showing differences in orchid morphology when comparing tetraploid daughter species to diploid parents. Of course, this information is so commonplace among orchid fanciers and geneticists (Dr. Henry Wallbrunn, my genetics professor, was both) that finding explicit information of a tutorial nature online is a bit challenging. That still doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.
Yes, FtK, you do know squat about this topic, and anyone listening to your claims that macroevolutionary changes don't happen and humans can't even induce such was ill-served by you. Yet I have heard nothing concerning retraction of the false claims, nor anything that would indicate that you will not be offering the very same falsehoods tonight, next week, or whenever you might find it convenient to do so. Instead, we have what appears to be an example of intellectual extortion, 'Tutor me; take up a bunch of your time, or I'll feel justified in continuing just as I have, and may do so anyway.' |
Yeah, okay Wes...whatever. I get it...fuck you ftk, I'm not going to help you in the least because I think you're a lying, crazy creationist like all the rest of the loony creationists I've ever been in contact with in the past.
Or, on second thought, maybe your examples suck and providing further information will make that even more obvious.
How many years did you say you worked for NCSE? The attitude must be a prerequisite.
--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero
|
