OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory. Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'. The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.
Copy and pasting is not understanding. I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about. It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution. Look at the title of this forum. There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here. You don't think that they do know something about evolution.
I don't have to project or goal post shift. I know what I'm talking about. And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.
Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway. That's a sign of intellectual cowardice. You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours. I did. The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered. You have not even begun to answer mine.
2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites? Got it thanks.
Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report. I have not slandered you. You are using someone else's words without attribution.
As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal. It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own. You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done.
You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!? Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book.
3) The article is about metmorphosis. Insects have a 'natal' really?
I'll remind you AGAIN. You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype". I want an example. You are posting articles on metamorphosis. Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic. You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time. But that is NOT what you claimed. You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype". I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong. You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was. If you abandon that claim, fine. Then say so. We still agree on all the other stuff.
Learning???!?!?! So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too? If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.
Parental effects? Like what? MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?
3) What mutated ursids? I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about. This is true. Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER. I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.
If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything. Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification.
BTW: Those were all my own words. You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet. Your claims are therefore refuted.
Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order?
Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms? Well, I can't do it. No one can. No one will ever be able to. It's an impossible request.
That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals. That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores. That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans. That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles.
Can your notions do better? Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores. Explain what your results are and how you go them. Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
