Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The Bathroom Wall

Pages: (666) < ... 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 ... >

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,14:10    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2009,11:59)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 05 2009,13:31) I must take umbrage at this Eisenhower foolishness, it's simply not true.  Of course average babies might look that way.... Mine looked like Leif Ericsson.  22" and 9 lb 8 oz, bright red hair.   Sounds more like Carrot Top to me. Wow. I wouldn't even insult Louis that bad. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,14:18    Quote (Louis @ Feb. 06 2009,06:01) Quote (khan @ Feb. 05 2009,18:46) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,12:10)   Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,01:30) My girlfriend and I are in the often invisible "Deliberately Childless" group. We both love our free, independent adult lives too much to have kids. Check back and see if she still feels that way when she's 41. I did. I still do at 58. You lucky, lucky lady. Mine did the old switcheroo on me! {shakes fist} DAMN YOU WOMANKIND!!!!! DAMN YOU!!!!!!!! Louis Congrats, I was lukewarm on kids until I had mine and now I (in another time and place) would be happy to have five.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,14:19    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,14:10) Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2009,11:59)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 05 2009,13:31) I must take umbrage at this Eisenhower foolishness, it's simply not true.  Of course average babies might look that way.... Mine looked like Leif Ericsson.  22" and 9 lb 8 oz, bright red hair.   Sounds more like Carrot Top to me. Wow. I wouldn't even insult Louis that bad. Well, I wouldn't actually take advice about how to insult someone from some Gay-Bay-living, Birkenstock-wearing, bird-watching, tree-hugging, kumba-fucking-ya liberal dopesmoker like you. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,14:48    Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2009,12:19) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,14:10)   Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 05 2009,11:59)     Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 05 2009,13:31) I must take umbrage at this Eisenhower foolishness, it's simply not true.  Of course average babies might look that way.... Mine looked like Leif Ericsson.  22" and 9 lb 8 oz, bright red hair.   Sounds more like Carrot Top to me. Wow. I wouldn't even insult Louis that bad. Well, I wouldn't actually take advice about how to insult someone from some Gay-Bay-living, Birkenstock-wearing, bird-watching, tree-hugging, kumba-fucking-ya liberal dopesmoker like you. Please. I can't stand Birkenstocks. -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,14:57    Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,11:10)   Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,01:30) My girlfriend and I are in the often invisible "Deliberately Childless" group. We both love our free, independent adult lives too much to have kids. Check back and see if she still feels that way when she's 41. I would say, don't give her an opening! Let her broach it. (Bias disclosure: Moi, deliberately childfree at 43. The only thing my biological clock is good for is to measure chocolate-time increments.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:06    <looks around> Oups, seems I'm a little late to the party. But how could I've known you're all hiding in the bathroom of all places. Anyway, congratulations! All the best to you and your wife. I'm all for the propagation of academics as long as I don't have to do it ;) -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:11    Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 05 2009,14:57) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,11:10)   Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,01:30) My girlfriend and I are in the often invisible "Deliberately Childless" group. We both love our free, independent adult lives too much to have kids. Check back and see if she still feels that way when she's 41. I would say, don't give her an opening! :p Let her broach it. (Bias disclosure: Moi, deliberately childfree at 43. The only thing my biological clock is good for is to measure chocolate-time increments.) Maybe Louis could forward those videos and instructions to you, now that he's all done with that... :) -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:13    Quote (JLT @ Feb. 05 2009,21:06) <looks around> Oups, seems I'm a little late to the party. But how could I've known you're all hiding in the bathroom of all places. Anyway, congratulations -->Louis<--! All the best to you and your wife. I'm all for the propagation of academics as long as I don't have to do it ;) I need an edit button. Seriously. -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:15    And don't forget to read  Goodnight Moon to the little ankle biter when old enough. And  The Wind in the Willows later. Its a great way to drain away your own stress. KC -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:22    Quote (Kristine @ Feb. 05 2009,15:57) Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Feb. 05 2009,11:10)   Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 05 2009,01:30) My girlfriend and I are in the often invisible "Deliberately Childless" group. We both love our free, independent adult lives too much to have kids. Check back and see if she still feels that way when she's 41. I would say, don't give her an opening! :p Let her broach it. (Bias disclosure: Moi, deliberately childfree at 43. The only thing my biological clock is good for is to measure chocolate-time increments.) You know the word. Do you also know the secret handshake? -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:39    -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,15:40    Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,15:15) And don't forget to read  Goodnight Moon to the little ankle biter when old enough. And  The Wind in the Willows later. Its a great way to drain away your own stress. KC good night moon.  good night mouse.  good night little old bunny rabbit mamaw sitting in the rocking chair. Erasmus 2.0 has a thing for the moon.  it was one of the first words he learned and he is always drawing moons and talking about them.  If you ask him where the moon goes he`ll say "Behind the Earf!"  Not sure if he knows what that means but he also says it for the sun.  I'm comfortable with that level of explanation for now.  I considered telling him that Jesus steals it every night, just to get a rise out of his granny.  decided to save that one for later.  it's not hard to get her riled up anyhoo. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,16:04    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 05 2009,15:40) Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,15:15) And don't forget to read  Goodnight Moon to the little ankle biter when old enough. And  The Wind in the Willows later. Its a great way to drain away your own stress. KC good night moon.  good night mouse.  good night little old bunny rabbit mamaw sitting in the rocking chair. Erasmus 2.0 has a thing for the moon.  it was one of the first words he learned and he is always drawing moons and talking about them.  If you ask him where the moon goes he`ll say "Behind the Earf!"  Not sure if he knows what that means but he also says it for the sun.  I'm comfortable with that level of explanation for now.  I considered telling him that Jesus steals it every night, just to get a rise out of his granny.  decided to save that one for later.  it's not hard to get her riled up anyhoo. Both my daughters loved playing the game of finding the mouse in every picture. I enjoyed the soothing rhythm  of the text, a prose lullaby. Which was fortunate, since there was a local ordinance against me singing anything.   KC -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,16:10    Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,17:04) Both my daughters loved playing the game of finding the mouse in every picture. I enjoyed the soothing rhythm  of the text, a prose lullaby. Which was fortunate, since there was a local ordinance against me singing anything.   KC A brilliant, hypnotic little book, the artwork no less than the prose. I miss stuff like that, since my girls are now 18 and 22. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,16:27    Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,15:15) And don't forget to read  Goodnight Moon to the little ankle biter when old enough. And  The Wind in the Willows later. Its a great way to drain away your own stress. KC Good grief, is Goodnight Moon still popular? My eldest is turned 21, and he  (and the others) loved it when they were tiddlers. By the third nipper, I could read it whilst being half asleep myself. Congrats, Louis. I hope yours turns out  to be as much a) fun; and b) a source of paternal pride as mine did.

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,16:29    A ways back, Khan wrote: Quote "Little pink houses for you and me" sorry, feeling nostalgic Uh-Huh

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,16:53    Quote (damitall @ Feb. 05 2009,16:27) Good grief, is Goodnight Moon still popular? My eldest is turned 21, and he  (and the others) loved it when they were tiddlers. By the third nipper, I could read it whilst being half asleep myself. Congrats, Louis. I hope yours turns out  to be as much a) fun; and b) a source of paternal pride as mine did. But if you have not seen the Goodnight Bush parody, with Cheney whispering "Hush" and Osama Bin Laden taking the place of the mouse, wandering throughout the room, you have a treat in store for you.  It's a classic as well! -------------- 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

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:07    Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 04 2009,17:24) Nobody builds trees based on only one morphological feature, Daniel, and the authors of that paper don't suggest they do. Please read the actual paper rather than just skimming the abstract and gawking at the pictures. There was a point to that exercise, and it went right over your head. My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some. Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:08    Quote (JonF @ Feb. 04 2009,17:31)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,19:06)     Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 04 2009,14:56)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 03 2009,19:00)    [snip] Wesley, It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for.  Of course it would be!  Why wouldn't it?  Life's systems are optimized.   The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system. With the TSP, we have the luxury of viewing all the precursors and seeing exactly why they didn't work as well as the final solution.   If biological evolution worked like the TSP, why has such detail eluded us? Perhaps I was unclear. The TSP example shows that in either evolutionary computation or biological evolution, there is no evaluation of "potential", only the evaluation of which of existing candidate "solutions" is better than other existing candidate solutions. The wrasse example, which you've ignored, also makes that point plus it demonstrates that which candidates are relatively better is often tied directly to physical, chemical, and physiological constraints. I can't make heads or tails of your last question, as it rests on a false assumption. Wesley, Just to be clear, when I speak of "potential", I'm talking about multi-step, or multi-layered systems for which the majority of pieces have to be in the correct place in order for the system to work.  "Potential" in that regard is a "psuedo-system" or a "psuedo-pathway" - one that doesn't actually work but is a necessary precursor to one that does. In the electrical circuit example it was all the circuits that didn't actually work but were selected because they showed potential towards the ultimate goal. You weren't unclear ... you're just wrong again. No circuits were selected because they showed potential towards the ultimate goal. Circuits were selected because, as Wesley just said, "there is no evaluation of "potential", only the evaluation of which of existing candidate "solutions" is better than other existing candidate solutions.". Until you figure this out you're mired in error. Define "better" as it applies to the circuits. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:16    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2009,16:57)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:38) And this is beyond normal variation how? I mean is this a novel new feature never seen in flowers before? Or is this just normal variation produced by hybridization? That is correct. As far as we know those particular flowers have never been produced before. As for that last sentence, it makes no sense at all. Quit weaseling. This is an example of what you requested. If you have a better explanation from the god theory perspective, let's hear it. What part of my last question didn't you understand? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:21    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:07) My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some. Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant. Daniel, do you doubt common descent?* What is your current belief regarding the age of the earth? It occurs to me that you evaded giving a current reply. *The usual fine print vis early HGT. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:22    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,18:16)   Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2009,16:57)       Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:38) And this is beyond normal variation how? I mean is this a novel new feature never seen in flowers before? Or is this just normal variation produced by hybridization? That is correct. As far as we know those particular flowers have never been produced before. As for that last sentence, it makes no sense at all. Quit weaseling. This is an example of what you requested. If you have a better explanation from the god theory perspective, let's hear it. What part of my last question didn't you understand? All of it. What is "normal variation produced by hybridization"? Is it different than normal variation produced by mutation, or pleiotropism, or trait control by multiple genes? And what part of my answer to the other questions makes you think that this question is still in play? This flower morphology, to my knowledge, has not been seen before. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it. If you don't, then it means that the answer to your nonsensical question is NO. And you are weaseling still. Please tell me why this example does not fit your desired criteria. If you can't tell me that, then admit that you have no case. -------------- 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

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:27    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 04 2009,16:33) Daniel Smith:     Quote It sounds like the TSP is a much simpler problem than that - since every salesman can travel to every destination at any time.  (At least I'm assuming it works that way).  Now if the salesman had a budget for gas and food and had to make x amount of sales in order to survive, and if each destination had only so many sales available and other salesman competing over them, (IOW if it was like real life), then maybe it would be similar to the evolution of a real biochemical pathway or some other multi-layered system. That's astoundingly ignorant. Thanks for all the insight Wesley. As far as I can tell, the TSP is an optimization problem - where the best solution can always be found by a brute force search of all permutations.  As such, it is quite obvious that the shorter overall distance will always be selected. I'm still unclear how this relates to biological evolution or how it undercuts my statements regarding "potential" in the EC circuit example? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:32    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 05 2009,16:21)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:07) My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some. Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant. Daniel, do you doubt common descent?* What is your current belief regarding the age of the earth? It occurs to me that you evaded giving a current reply. *The usual fine print vis early HGT. Define "common descent". As for the age of the earth - forget it.  I have NO opinion at the present time on that.  If you want to quit "going around the mulberry bush" why do you keep bringing that up? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:36    And we should all hold off our 'opinions' on reality until we study your blithering idiocies. Worthless scabby git. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:39    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:08) Quote (JonF @ Feb. 04 2009,17:31)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,19:06)     Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 04 2009,14:56)         Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 03 2009,19:00)    [snip] Wesley, It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for.  Of course it would be!  Why wouldn't it?  Life's systems are optimized.   The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system. With the TSP, we have the luxury of viewing all the precursors and seeing exactly why they didn't work as well as the final solution.   If biological evolution worked like the TSP, why has such detail eluded us? Perhaps I was unclear. The TSP example shows that in either evolutionary computation or biological evolution, there is no evaluation of "potential", only the evaluation of which of existing candidate "solutions" is better than other existing candidate solutions. The wrasse example, which you've ignored, also makes that point plus it demonstrates that which candidates are relatively better is often tied directly to physical, chemical, and physiological constraints. I can't make heads or tails of your last question, as it rests on a false assumption. Wesley, Just to be clear, when I speak of "potential", I'm talking about multi-step, or multi-layered systems for which the majority of pieces have to be in the correct place in order for the system to work.  "Potential" in that regard is a "psuedo-system" or a "psuedo-pathway" - one that doesn't actually work but is a necessary precursor to one that does. In the electrical circuit example it was all the circuits that didn't actually work but were selected because they showed potential towards the ultimate goal. You weren't unclear ... you're just wrong again. No circuits were selected because they showed potential towards the ultimate goal. Circuits were selected because, as Wesley just said, "there is no evaluation of "potential", only the evaluation of which of existing candidate "solutions" is better than other existing candidate solutions.". Until you figure this out you're mired in error. Define "better" as it applies to the circuits. The original paper defined "better" precisely. Go back to that.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:44    Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:07) Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 04 2009,17:24) Nobody builds trees based on only one morphological feature, Daniel, and the authors of that paper don't suggest they do. Please read the actual paper rather than just skimming the abstract and gawking at the pictures. There was a point to that exercise, and it went right over your head. My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some. Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:51    Daniel makes headlines in UK. I have a rough draft of a paper on Steinbeck's The Chrysanthemums due in the morning, I don't have time for photoshopping. Somebody, please. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:56    Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 05 2009,16:22)     Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,18:16)         Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 04 2009,16:57)             Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:38) And this is beyond normal variation how? I mean is this a novel new feature never seen in flowers before? Or is this just normal variation produced by hybridization? That is correct. As far as we know those particular flowers have never been produced before. As for that last sentence, it makes no sense at all. Quit weaseling. This is an example of what you requested. If you have a better explanation from the god theory perspective, let's hear it. What part of my last question didn't you understand? All of it. What is "normal variation produced by hybridization"? Is it different than normal variation produced by mutation, or pleiotropism, or trait control by multiple genes? And what part of my answer to the other questions makes you think that this question is still in play? This flower morphology, to my knowledge, has not been seen before. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it. If you don't, then it means that the answer to your nonsensical question is NO. And you are weaseling still. Please tell me why this example does not fit your desired criteria. If you can't tell me that, then admit that you have no case.     Quote Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area. link So do you still think this is an uncommon evolutionary event? Or is this a normal occurrence in the plant world? -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Daniel Smith Posts: 970 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2009,18:59    Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 05 2009,16:44)   Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 05 2009,19:07)     Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 04 2009,17:24) Nobody builds trees based on only one morphological feature, Daniel, and the authors of that paper don't suggest they do. Please read the actual paper rather than just skimming the abstract and gawking at the pictures. There was a point to that exercise, and it went right over your head. My point was that if they did build trees based on single morphological characters, they wouldn't line up - not even close for some. Whether "nobody does it" or "everybody does it" is irrelevant. Would almost all the nested hierarchies "match exactly"? That's the claim.  All I did was provide evidence to the contrary. That's what's "wrong" with me apparently. -------------- "If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright "The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

Pages: (666) < ... 375 376 377 378 379 [380] 381 382 383 384 385 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard