Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,06:02

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 10 2009,21:40)

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 11 2009,11:25)

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2009,03:26)

Any chance of you getting your undereducated arse to a library? Or are you going to continue whining?

Louis

You just don't understand.

Denial said very forthrightly that he doesn't have the opportunity to "get down to the library," what with work, family and the tedious,time-consuming chore of carefully composing lengthy fallacy-strewn screeds that misrepresent what he's been told from day-to-day and the scant bits he's been able to learn for himself from creationist sites.

Asking him to read actual books or articles -- on top of his grueling daily mental contortions -- simply isn't fair.

Damn you evos and your impossible standards.

Yeah, sorry, I forgot that being minimally informed about a topic upon which one is bloviating is too high a bar to set.

louis

It's an easy mistake to make when you've been goose stepped into rational thinking.
Apology accepted.

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,10:30

I wish I could have shown the cartoon I saw many years ago in an American magazine - I even cut it out and hung it over my desk; the drawing shows a man lying on the sidewalk, obviously a salesman having been thrown out from a shop or office, the bubble addressing the man in the doorway: "I'll drop by next week" or maybe "See you again next week" or something like that, whatever would be appropriate American idiom.

Edit: improving text.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,14:27

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,10:30)

I wish I could have shown the cartoon I saw many years ago in an American magazine - I even cut it out and hung it over my desk; the drawing shows a man lying on the sidewalk, obviously a salesman having been thrown out from a shop or office, the bubble addressing the man in the doorway: "I'll drop by next week" or maybe "See you again next week" or something like that, whatever would be appropriate American idiom.

Edit: improving text.

I think that would be "Screw you later, fuck you very much!"

--------------
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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,14:39

As part of my research into the Tragopogon species that answer Daniel's challenge to find a biological system where the immediate precursors are known, I dug out Marion Ownbey's 1950 description of the allopolyploid species (American Journal of Botany, Vol. 37, No. 7 (Jul., 1950), pp. 487-499). This is apropos of nothing at all, but I just thought it was cool that the species descriptions were still written in Latin (!) in this paper.

Quote

Tragopogon mirus Ownbey, sp. nov.-Herbae biennes primum obscure floccosae deinde glabrae glaucaeque. Folia lineari-lanceolata semi-amplexicauliausque ad 5 cm. lata paulatim attentuata, marginibus non crispis, apicibus non cirrosis. Capitula multiflora, pedunculis inflatis fistulosis usque ad 15 mm. crassis. Bracteae involucri lineari-lanceolatae ubique virides, in plantis robustioribus plerumque 13. Ligulae bicoloratae ad apicem lilacinae ad basem flavae bracteis paulum breviores. Achenia rostraque conjuncta 25-35 mm. longa, exteriora fusca, interiora straminea, rostro corpore subaequilongo, pappo cervino.

Type: Washington. Whitman County: in fertile bottom land, Pullman, June 9, 1949, Ownbey 3195, in Herbarium of the State College of Washington, Pullman.

Tragopogon miscellus Ownbey, sp, nov.-Herbae biennes primum obscure floccosae deinde glabrae viridesque. Folia lineari-lanceolata semi-amplexicaulia usque ad 3 cm. lata abrupte attenuata, marginibus crispis, apicibus cirrosis. Capitula pluriflora, pedunculis inflatis fistulosis usque ad 10 mm. crassis. Bracteae involucri lineari-lanceolatae in plantis robustioribus plerumque 13, marginibus purpureis. Ligulae flavae bractea dimidia subaequilongae. Achenia rostraque conjuncta 25-35 mm. longa, exteriora fusca, interiora straminea, rostro corpore subaequilongo vel longiore, pappo cinereo.

Type: Idaho. Latah County: in fertile bottom land, Moscow, June 10, 1949, Ownbey 3196, in Herbarium of the State College of Washington, Pullman.

--------------
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

Quack

Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,15:42

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2009,14:27)

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 11 2009,10:30)

I wish I could have shown the cartoon I saw many years ago in an American magazine - I even cut it out and hung it over my desk; the drawing shows a man lying on the sidewalk, obviously a salesman having been thrown out from a shop or office, the bubble addressing the man in the doorway: "I'll drop by next week" or maybe "See you again next week" or something like that, whatever would be appropriate American idiom.

Edit: improving text.

I think that would be "Screw you later, fuck you very much!"

I may have been unclear - I did edit the text to make it clearer, and I trust the reason that image entered my mind and got posted here and not anywhere else is clear as well...

Anyway, you demonstrate the huge effect of a few well placed improvements.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
Robert Byers.

J-Dog

Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,15:47

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2009,14:39)

As part of my research into the Tragopogon species that answer Daniel's challenge to find a biological system where the immediate precursors are known, I dug out Marion Ownbey's 1950 description of the allopolyploid species (American Journal of Botany, Vol. 37, No. 7 (Jul., 1950), pp. 487-499).

Aren't all you Darwinist Scientists still placing the bar awfully high?

Does Daniel have access to all this latest cutting-edge sciencey research stuff?

--------------
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

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,15:56

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,15:47)

Aren't all you Darwinist Scientists still placing the bar awfully high?

Does Daniel have access to all this latest cutting-edge sciencey research stuff?

I'm not sure he could handle the exertion of getting to a library AND lifting the enormous weight of a page. Reading might be ...well, impossible at that point.

I think he has to go in stages.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Kristine

Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,16:48

Not quite a scientific discovery, but a fact: if you want innovation you must unleash the scientists.

Quote

It strikes me as one of the ironies of modern life that professorial faculty, who by and large lean to the left politically, accept such a brutal free-market approach to their livelihood. If they can’t raise grants to support their research every year, they won’t get paid. So not only do they have to worry about publish or perish, it’s also funding or famine, in the very real sense that without a grant there might not be food on the family dinner table!

It’s almost like a small business — each faculty member is essentially running an enterprise for which he or she must find revenue (grants), manage finances, balance the books and pay expenses like salaries, tuition, rent and even taxes to the university for the space used.

Such a system does not come without its own perils. It is not so easy to ask our young scientists to think out of the box when a significant portion of their salary (and mortgage payments) depends on guaranteeing a steady source of funding. Consequently, professors become highly attuned to the institutional priorities of various funding agencies — often at a cost to their own creativity and desired research directions.

Science at its most interesting is provocative, surprising, counter-intuitive and difficult to plan — and those are very difficult values to institutionalize in an organization or bureaucracy of any size. I have seen my own grant proposals get chewed up and rejected with comments like “typically bold, but wildly ambitious,” and wondered why it is wrong to be ambitious in one’s research — but perhaps that is a conclusion fully consistent with science by committee.

If anything, scientists don't have enough power. The real problem is "big administration."

--------------
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

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,17:02

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 11 2009,21:47)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2009,14:39)

As part of my research into the Tragopogon species that answer Daniel's challenge to find a biological system where the immediate precursors are known, I dug out Marion Ownbey's 1950 description of the allopolyploid species (American Journal of Botany, Vol. 37, No. 7 (Jul., 1950), pp. 487-499).

Aren't all you Darwinist Scientists still placing the bar awfully high?

Does Daniel have access to all this latest cutting-edge sciencey research stuff?

Getting a 1950's paper can be accomplished through a simple interlibrary loan. Cheap and convenient.

Learning LATIN however....

I think we'll leave the bar at "learning to read and form coherent arguments, knowing some bare minimum about a subject prior to bloviation". These are causing Denial enough trouble at the moment.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:08

The condescension here never ceases to amaze me. It's a defense mechanism you know. Why are you all so defensive?

Bill: Chimps and bonobos - no, humans - yes.

Albatrossity: How about the parents' parents? And the parents' parents' parents? Cousins?

Louis: I don't think your reading comprehension is all you crack it up to be.

--------------
"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

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:43

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2009,19:08)

Albatrossity: How about the parents' parents? And the parents' parents' parents? Cousins?

Pathetic hypocrite. When you assert that evolutionary biologists spin yarns and just-so stories, why do you think you can get away with that in return?

As noted before, if you want us to believe that this is "normal variation", whether it is one generation back, or 200, the onus is on you to give us the evidence.

Or, as noted before, admit that you are wrong and take that first baby step toward thinking like a scientist.

--------------
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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:47

hey Denial why don't you go read a frikkin book

You're full of shit. Condescension is entirely appropriate given the content and quality and incessitude of your claims.

--------------
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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,19:48

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2009,20:08)

Bill: Chimps and bonobos - no, humans - yes.

Now, was that so hard?

Of course, the essence of my question pertains to the common ancestry of human beings and the other great apes. Your response (correct me if I am wrong) is that you believe that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimps shared a common ancestor, yet there is a basis for doubt of common ancestry between human beings and the other great apes (and beyond).

Some questions:

- What is your basis for doubt in the instance of human beings? A basis that does not exclude shared ancestry for other species.

- Chimps and bonobos are separate species. They diverged approximately 2.5 million years ago. They shared a common ancestor. You now state that you believe there is no basis for doubt that there was such a common ancestor. Does not this inferred but undoubted common ancestor satisfy your demand for an example of an immediate precursor of complex system(s) (namely chimpanzees and bonobos)?

- How do you square the above (assertion of reasonable doubt regarding the common ancestry of humans and other great apes) with your recent statement, "I have no reason - at this present time - to doubt common descent." You are now directly contradicting that statement. Which is it?

- Since you believe that doubt of common ancestry between human beings and other great apes (and presumably all other species) is reasonable, whence would say human beings emerged, if not from ancestral species?

- What relevance does your model of front loading at the onset of life have for human beings if they didn't descend in some manner (even if by means of saltations) from SOME ancestral species?

[edits for clarity, accuracy and enhanced acidity]

--------------
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

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Henry J

Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:35

Quote

- Chimps and bonobos are separate species. Their common ancestor likely a third. Now you now state you believe there is no basis for doubt that there was such a common ancestor. Does not this inferred but undoubted common ancestor satisfy your demand for an example of an immediate precursor of complex system(s) (namely chimpanzees and bonobos)?

Do chimps and/or bonobos have any complex systems that weren't present in their common ancestor? For that matter, do humans have any complex systems that weren't already present in the most recent chimp/bonobo/human common ancestor?

Henry

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,21:41

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 11 2009,22:35)

Quote

- Chimps and bonobos are separate species. Their common ancestor likely a third. Now you now state you believe there is no basis for doubt that there was such a common ancestor. Does not this inferred but undoubted common ancestor satisfy your demand for an example of an immediate precursor of complex system(s) (namely chimpanzees and bonobos)?

Do chimps and/or bonobos have any complex systems that weren't present in their common ancestor? For that matter, do humans have any complex systems that weren't already present in the most recent chimp/bonobo/human common ancestor?

Henry

Vis the latter: a suite of neural and structural adaptations for generating and comprehending syntactic speech comes to mind. Which enables the notion of a suite of neural and physical adaptations for generating syntactic speech to come to mind.

--------------
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

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Arden Chatfield

Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,22:18

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 11 2009,17:47)

hey Denial why don't you go read a frikkin book

You're full of shit. Condescension is entirely appropriate given the content and quality and incessitude of your claims.

There's only one book Daniel's gonna read, and that ain't it.

--------------
"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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,22:32

yeah. 1611 BY GOD

there is a lot in that book that directly refutes the horseshit he has claimed here.

even more interestingly there is a lot in that book that questions whatever they call the synthesis these days. alas, productive and interesting discussion with Denial* is likely out of the realm of possibility (10^53 or something like that?)

*Loose you sly bastard. that is simple, obvious, and beautifully accurate

--------------
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

deadman_932

Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

Posted: Feb. 11 2009,23:14

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2009,22:32)

[snip]Denial* is likely out of the realm of possibility (10^53 or something like that?)

*Loose you sly bastard. that is simple, obvious, and beautifully accurate

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2009,18:45)

When Denial Smith asked for a viable pathway
Denial's reaction to that was to then shift the goalposts (again)

*A-hem*

Not that Louis isn't witty and urbane enough to come up with the cognomen; he's just a tad slow on the draw lately. (see, Loose, I compliment you sometimes)

I venture all the sextracurricular activity he's been involved in lately led to his current plight -- har, har.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,05:47

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,01:08)

The condescension here never ceases to amaze me. It's a defense mechanism you know. Why are you all so defensive?

Bill: Chimps and bonobos - no, humans - yes.

Albatrossity: How about the parents' parents? And the parents' parents' parents? Cousins?

Louis: I don't think your reading comprehension is all you crack it up to be.

Complaints about condescension implies it isn't accurate for us to condescend to you.

Denial, you self admittedly are not a scientist. You self admittedly have made poor arguments here. People have gone to some lengths to point this out to you with varying degrees of politeness. When you appeal to conspiracies and stupidity amongst a community of hundreds of thousands of hard working, qualified scientists simply because their fact based findings are at odds with your interpretation of your religion, you are so far from reason as to be unrecognisable. What you call "defensiveness" is merely irritation at your ignorant arrogance. As you well know.

Do you truly expect that people will not remember what you have said, how you have said it, and why? Not everyone is as stupid, ignorant and arrogantly proud of it as you are Denial.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,05:51

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 12 2009,05:14)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 11 2009,22:32)

[snip]Denial* is likely out of the realm of possibility (10^53 or something like that?)

*Loose you sly bastard. that is simple, obvious, and beautifully accurate

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 01 2009,18:45)

When Denial Smith asked for a viable pathway
Denial's reaction to that was to then shift the goalposts (again)

*A-hem*

Not that Louis isn't witty and urbane enough to come up with the cognomen; he's just a tad slow on the draw lately. (see, Loose, I compliment you sometimes)

I venture all the sextracurricular activity he's been involved in lately led to his current plight -- har, har.

Yeah, that one was a) brilliant and b) not mine. Deadman gets all the credit.

Louis

ETA: It is good enough for me to have thought "I wish I thought of that". (You will, Oscar, you will.)

--------------
Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:00

Daniel Smith:

Quote

Why are you all so defensive?

I don't know about that. But I can recall various posts of yours with you being offensive.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:30

OK fine.

deadman you are a genius. for already cited reasons.

Loose you are a knockoff, a cheap plastic facsimile of an imitation pleather replica of a remake. And you have no morals and you are probably an atheist ALL DAY LONG. I won't even mention the incident with putting a saddle on a duck and the Thimerasol. yuk.

--------------
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

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,06:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 12 2009,12:30)

OK fine.

deadman you are a genius. for already cited reasons.

Loose you are a knockoff, a cheap plastic facsimile of an imitation pleather replica of a remake. And you have no morals and you are probably an atheist ALL DAY LONG. I won't even mention the incident with putting a saddle on a duck and the Thimerasol. yuk.

LOL Thiomersal? Been reading about Ben Goldacre and the MMR scandal have we?

Louis

P.S. I am an atheist on an almost second by second basis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,17:51

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2009,17:43)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2009,19:08)

Albatrossity: How about the parents' parents? And the parents' parents' parents? Cousins?

Pathetic hypocrite. When you assert that evolutionary biologists spin yarns and just-so stories, why do you think you can get away with that in return?

As noted before, if you want us to believe that this is "normal variation", whether it is one generation back, or 200, the onus is on you to give us the evidence.

Or, as noted before, admit that you are wrong and take that first baby step toward thinking like a scientist.

If I cross a red flower with a white flower, I may get a red flower, I may get a white flower, or I may - in some instances - get a pink flower. Pink colored petals is a morphological feature not present in either parent. Does this meet my challenge too?
My wife and I are both right-handed. Our children are both left-handed. Left-handedness is a morphological feature not present in both parents. Does this also meet my challenge?
Your argument is so absurd, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are even putting it out there.
If this is the best you can do - you've lost.
I've admitted when I was wrong throughout this discussion. This is not one of those times. Maybe it's time for you to admit that you're wrong.

--------------
"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

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,17:54

BWAHAHAHA

God that is dumb.

Your analogies are irrelevant. If handedness or flower color was a different flower morphology, you would have a point.

Why don't you try asking what would happen if instead of a penis or a vagina, your junior has a flaming double headed spear with feathers on it. That's about the scale of what we are talking about.

Good Lord now I know that you are just a troll.

OK you're right I've known it for a long time. Piss Off.

--------------
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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,18:07

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 11 2009,17:48)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2009,20:08)

Bill: Chimps and bonobos - no, humans - yes.

Now, was that so hard?

Of course, the essence of my question pertains to the common ancestry of human beings and the other great apes. Your response (correct me if I am wrong) is that you believe that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimps shared a common ancestor, yet there is a basis for doubt of common ancestry between human beings and the other great apes (and beyond).

Some questions:

- What is your basis for doubt in the instance of human beings? A basis that does not exclude shared ancestry for other species.

- Chimps and bonobos are separate species. They diverged approximately 2.5 million years ago. They shared a common ancestor. You now state that you believe there is no basis for doubt that there was such a common ancestor. Does not this inferred but undoubted common ancestor satisfy your demand for an example of an immediate precursor of complex system(s) (namely chimpanzees and bonobos)?

- How do you square the above (assertion of reasonable doubt regarding the common ancestry of humans and other great apes) with your recent statement, "I have no reason - at this present time - to doubt common descent." You are now directly contradicting that statement. Which is it?

- Since you believe that doubt of common ancestry between human beings and other great apes (and presumably all other species) is reasonable, whence would say human beings emerged, if not from ancestral species?

- What relevance does your model of front loading at the onset of life have for human beings if they didn't descend in some manner (even if by means of saltations) from SOME ancestral species?

[edits for clarity, accuracy and enhanced acidity]

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution. The saltational theories of evolution I've studied all posit multiple origins though (similar to the flowers Albatrossity keeps harping about).

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them. It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

--------------
"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

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,18:14

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,18:51)

If I cross a red flower with a white flower, I may get a red flower, I may get a white flower, or I may - in some instances - get a pink flower. Pink colored petals is a morphological feature not present in either parent. Does this meet my challenge too?
My wife and I are both right-handed. Our children are both left-handed. Left-handedness is a morphological feature not present in both parents. Does this also meet my challenge?
Your argument is so absurd, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are even putting it out there.
If this is the best you can do - you've lost.
I've admitted when I was wrong throughout this discussion. This is not one of those times. Maybe it's time for you to admit that you're wrong.

You are utterly clueless about Biology, Daniel.

Completely, utterly, clueless.

This is very basic Bio 111 stuff. You're totally wrong about it, and yet you're going to overturn 150 years of biological research?

Daniel, seriously, you are fundamentally ignorant. What's really sad is that you have a vast resource freely available right at your fingertips, and you're too busy stomping your feet and screaming "Nuh uh" to take advantage of it.

That makes you as stupid as you are ignorant.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

khan

Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,18:16

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 11 2009,17:48)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 11 2009,20:08)

Bill: Chimps and bonobos - no, humans - yes.

Now, was that so hard?

Of course, the essence of my question pertains to the common ancestry of human beings and the other great apes. Your response (correct me if I am wrong) is that you believe that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimps shared a common ancestor, yet there is a basis for doubt of common ancestry between human beings and the other great apes (and beyond).

Some questions:

- What is your basis for doubt in the instance of human beings? A basis that does not exclude shared ancestry for other species.

- Chimps and bonobos are separate species. They diverged approximately 2.5 million years ago. They shared a common ancestor. You now state that you believe there is no basis for doubt that there was such a common ancestor. Does not this inferred but undoubted common ancestor satisfy your demand for an example of an immediate precursor of complex system(s) (namely chimpanzees and bonobos)?

- How do you square the above (assertion of reasonable doubt regarding the common ancestry of humans and other great apes) with your recent statement, "I have no reason - at this present time - to doubt common descent." You are now directly contradicting that statement. Which is it?

- Since you believe that doubt of common ancestry between human beings and other great apes (and presumably all other species) is reasonable, whence would say human beings emerged, if not from ancestral species?

- What relevance does your model of front loading at the onset of life have for human beings if they didn't descend in some manner (even if by means of saltations) from SOME ancestral species?

[edits for clarity, accuracy and enhanced acidity]

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution. The saltational theories of evolution I've studied all posit multiple origins though (similar to the flowers Albatrossity keeps harping about).

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them. It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Your 'wanting' has nothing to do with reality.

--------------
"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

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 12 2009,18:18

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)

Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry. I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that. It's my bias. I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution. I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

As for your other questions: Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution. The saltational theories of evolution I've studied all posit multiple origins though (similar to the flowers Albatrossity keeps harping about).

As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that. I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them. It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor. The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Unfortunately for you, reality doesn't give a flying crap about your bias. Get over it.

--------------
â€œWhy do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linkyâ€œ. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007