Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 06 2008,14:12) | That's you're only response???? That settles it, huh?
News flash, I want to know *how* and *why* common descent supposedly proved to be better in terms of explaining differences & similarities, as well as in making predictions that have been verified by experiment. I want to know *everything*, and by God, I'll keep asking questions until they're answered to my satisfaction. I *sure* hope that your students question you further when you give pat answers like that that say absolutely nothing. |
No, you're just asking more questions because you don't understand the answers already provided. From a purely pragmatic perspective it might be enough to hear that one paradigm beat the other into the ground when they went head to head. But since you never bothered to address my answer until now, I'm not sure how I was supposed to know that you were interested in the details beyond just that pragmatic answer. Nevertheless, it IS an answer to your question, even if you'd like to pretend that it is "pat".
Unfortunately if you really want the details, you will have to learn a LOT more biology. Tom tried to explain to you WHY common descent was useful, but your replies indicated that you didn't have a clue about chromosome structure (among other things), which would make that explanation sensible to you. Maybe that's why he seems to have checked out. I am also tired of explaining things to you only to find out that you don't understand the biological basics well enough to understand the answer (see icefish, or nested hierarchies). Those of us who do teach on a daily basis do have a pretty good recognition of when a student just doesn't have the general background or knowledge to understand a concept...
FYI, my students will understand biology, and they also understand that I will keep trying to help them if they are floundering. One small difference between them and you might be that they do recognize that my attempts at answering their question usually are not the same as "absolutely nothing". Another might be that they don't continually insult me on a personal basis, or constantly impugn my teaching abilities, or worry about my religious views. Finally, they usually make visible progress after a while. On all of these levels, you fail. Just like design.
If you really are serious about learning "how" and "why", you've been provided with some answers here. On your part, you've failed to show us how "common design" explains differences as well as similarities. That alone should give you a clue about which explanatory framework is preferable, and why. But you can't see it.
You can also get more answers by reading that biography of Haeckel; there are numerous examples of "how" and "why" detailed there. Unfortunately those experiments and their context may be over your head as well. But it would be a good place to start.
It might also be a good idea to quit insulting people when you are also making demands from them. If you do indeed want to "know everything", and you keep asking here because you understand that some folks here do actually know enough to teach you something, you can at least pretend to give a hoot about the answers that have already been provided. That is better than continually implying that nobody except Tom has the information you allegedly desire.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
