RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (513) < ... 371 372 373 374 375 [376] 377 378 379 380 381 ... >   
  Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2792
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2018,10:26   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2018,06:16)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 15 2018,20:11)
Clearly some variation in  FOXP2 here..

FOXp2, just another gene evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for.

QED

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2018,10:29   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 16 2018,10:26)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 16 2018,06:16)
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 15 2018,20:11)
Clearly some variation in  FOXP2 here..

FOXp2, just another gene evolution by means of blind and mindless processes cannot account for.

QED

Exactly. It has yet to be shown that blind and mindless processes can produce FOXP2.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2018,18:49   

Quote
The true meaning of the term "origin of species" was understood only rather recently. Not only were the pre-Darwinists vague on this issue, but even Darwin himself seems to have considered "origin of species" the same as "evolution" (Mayr 1959a). Thus he confused two essentially different problems under the single heading "origin of species". Darwin was primarily interested in demonstrating evolutionary change as such.- Ernst Mayr, "Animal Species and Evolution", 1963, pg 424


Just so Richie understands where I get my information from. How much is that signature worth now, cupcake?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2018,23:49   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2018,22:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2018,11:52)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 13 2018,11:49)
Darwin didn't say anything about the origin of species.

TARD

Read what you wrote, you chubby retard.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2018,07:27   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2018,23:49)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 14 2018,22:11)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 13 2018,11:52)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 13 2018,11:49)
Darwin didn't say anything about the origin of species.

TARD

Read what you wrote, you chubby retard.

I know what I wrote, dumbass. And I just supported it. Don't blame me for your willful ignorance and stupidity.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2018,07:30   

The true meaning of the term "origin of species" was understood only rather recently. Not only were the pre-Darwinists vague on this issue, but even Darwin himself seems to have considered "origin of species" the same as "evolution" (Mayr 1959a). Thus he confused two essentially different problems under the single heading "origin of species". Darwin was primarily interested in demonstrating evolutionary change as such.- Ernst Mayr, "Animal Species and Evolution", 1963, pg 424


Darwin didn't know the true meaning which means he didn't discuss the origin of species. And Richie will never be able to show otherwise- well he never read Darwin's book.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2018,08:12   

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote
The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.


WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:  

Quote
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings


Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:    

Quote
Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14



Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote
Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification.


Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:  

Quote
Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.



and
 
Quote
*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).


It was based on a common design scheme.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2018,20:25   

John Harshman is clueless about nested hierarchies

It never fails. Once evoTARDs eat the fruit of willful ignorance they try to spread it around. Too bad that only works for other willfully ignorant people.

keiths and John Harshman continue to puke all over themselves when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

Quote
The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.


WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:  

Quote
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings


Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:    

Quote
Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14



Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

Zachriel, Alan Fox and John Harshman are also totally ignorant when it comes to nested hierarchies. Now I know why I was banned from the skeptical zone- so I couldn't refute their nonsense to their faces. This way they can continue to ignore reality and prattle on like a bunch of ignoramuses.

Sad, really. Here is another hint from the Knox paper:

Quote
Regardless of what is eventually learned about the evolution of Clarkia/Heterogaura, the complex nature of evolutionary processes yields patterns that are more complex than can be represented by the simple hierarchical models of either monophyletic systematization or Linnaean classification.


Notice the either or at the end? Only Linnaean classification is the objective nested hierarchy with respect to biology. And what does UC Berkley say about Linnaean classification?:  

Quote
Most of us are accustomed to the Linnaean system of classification that assigns every organism a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species, which, among other possibilities, has the handy mnemonic King Philip Came Over For Good Soup. This system was created long before scientists understood that organisms evolved. Because the Linnaean system is not based on evolution, most biologists are switching to a classification system that reflects the organisms' evolutionary history.



and
 
Quote
*The standard system of classification in which every organism is assigned a kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. This system groups organisms into ever smaller and smaller groups (like a series of boxes within boxes, called a nested hierarchy).


It was based on a common design scheme.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1621
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,12:59   

Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,13:11   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,12:59)
Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

faggot (slang):
Quote
it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male"




urban dictionary says

Quote
In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser.


--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,13:13   

However, over on Hunter's blog blowTARD is trying to make it seem as if it is a mature and upstanding person and I am the only one who hurls insults. Too bad the evidence is contrary to that bit of bullshit.

It is very telling that when pressed for any posts blowTARD made that are mature it failed to post anything

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2792
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,13:25   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,10:59)
Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

I think he meant donkeys that eat bundles of sticks, i.e. "faggot-munching ass", but, you know, FOXp2 and all...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,13:26   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 18 2018,13:25)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,10:59)
Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
 
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

I think he meant donkeys that eat bundles of sticks, i.e. "faggot-munching ass", but, you know, FOXp2 and all...

Yes, you definitely have a very mutated FOXp2.

Nice own goal

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1621
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,14:17   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,13:11)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,12:59)
Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
 
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

faggot (slang):
Quote
it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male"




urban dictionary says

Quote
In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser.

Joke:
Quote
Faggot Slang:  it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male"


Quotemined from the following:

Quote
Faggot, often shortened to fag, is a pejorative term used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to a gay male.[3][4][5] Alongside its use to refer to gay men in particular, it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male" or to refer to women who are lesbian.[5][6][7] Its use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including film, music, and the Internet.


Joe, I thought that quitemines were wrong.

I’m still waiting for your explanation of your use of “ass-munching faggot”.  I could really use a good laugh today.

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,14:28   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,14:17)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,13:11)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 18 2018,12:59)
Over at Hunter’s blog, Joe is trying to claim that him calling people “ass-munching faggots” on this thread is not a homosexual slur.
 
Quote
Not everyone equates "faggot" with "homosexual". I know that I don't.

I guess he is actually talking about ass-munching bundles of sticks. How did I ever think that it might have been a homophobic slur? How narrow minded of me.

Your ignorance is not an argument.

faggot (slang):
 
Quote
it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male"




urban dictionary says

 
Quote
In these times not really used if somebody is really a homosexual mostly used instead of calling somebody stupid or a loser.

Joke:
Quote
Faggot Slang:  it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male"


Quotemined from the following:

Quote
Faggot, often shortened to fag, is a pejorative term used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to a gay male.[3][4][5] Alongside its use to refer to gay men in particular, it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male" or to refer to women who are lesbian.[5][6][7] Its use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including film, music, and the Internet.


Joe, I thought that quitemines were wrong.

I’m still waiting for your explanation of your use of “ass-munching faggot”.  I could really use a good laugh today.

Quote-mines are wrong but you cannot show that mine was a quote-mine. All I need is for ONE of the definitions/ uses to fit my claim, moron and I haz that, dipshit. But I understand that English is not your native language. How can it be seeing that you bastardize it?

My use of that phrase fits the people or person I was responding to. It is an observation with overwhelming support.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,14:29   

OK we can add "quote-mine" to the long and ever growing list of things blowTARD is ignorant of.

Nice own goal

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,14:55   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 18 2018,14:46)
Oh oh, evolution is being threatened by more evidence for evolution:

Quote
“The hourglass model of embryonic evolution predicts an hourglass-like divergence during animal embryogenesis – with embryos being more divergent at the earliest and latest stages but conserved during a mid-embryonic (phylotypic) period that serves as a source of the basic body plan for animals within a phylum.”

Well, not so fast: From Hajk-Georg Drost, Philipp Janitza, Ivo Grosse, and Marcel Quint at Current Opinion in Genetics & Development:

• Developmental hourglass patterns are not specific for animals.

• In plants, developmental hourglass patterns are associated with embryogenesis and post-embryonic phase transitions.

• Morphological and transcriptomic patterns can be uncoupled.


Remember the "developmental hourglass"?  Well, not so fast.

Ha ha, Darwinists, plants have embryological evidence for evolution as well.  Don't you look stupid?  Then Dense babbles this nonsense:  "“Organizational checkpoints” as a substitute? Sure, but that is design, not Darwin."

Yeah, that's it, just declare it to be so.

Glen Davidson

And Glen continues to be an equivocating TARD. ID is not anti-evolution you willfully ignorant dick.

But do tell how blind and mindless processes produced developmental processes. Oh, that's right, you don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes let alone developmental pathways.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,15:28   

And blowTARD is back on Hunter's blog proving that it is an ass-muncher and a faggot.

Thank you

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,16:48   

Nice meltdown Joe

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,16:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,16:48)
Nice meltdown Joe

I must be proving that evoTARDs are useless bitches.

Thanks, Dick.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,17:53   

John Harshman on birds and kinds


Quote
I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?


1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

Quote
Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.


You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2018,23:08   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,16:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,16:48)
Nice meltdown Joe

I must be proving that evoTARDs are useless bitches.

Thanks, Dick.

a 12 year old mean girl's attitude with a 7 year old intellect in a 62 year old chubby man's bod.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2792
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,00:19   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,15:53)
John Harshman on birds and kinds


 
Quote
I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?


1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

 
Quote
Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.


You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes.

You are so right!

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,07:40   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,23:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,16:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,16:48)
Nice meltdown Joe

I must be proving that evoTARDs are useless bitches.

Thanks, Dick.

a 12 year old mean girl's attitude with a 7 year old intellect in a 62 year old chubby man's bod.

Yes, that's you to a t, dickie

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,07:49   

Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 19 2018,00:19)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,15:53)
John Harshman on birds and kinds


 
Quote
I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?


1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

 
Quote
Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.


You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes.

You are so right!

OK thank you

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 1621
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,10:24   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,14:29)
OK we can add "quote-mine" to the long and ever growing list of things blowTARD is ignorant of.

Nice own goal

No, I am quite aware of what a quote mine is. Taking a string of words out of context to suggest a different meaning or argument. Thank you for providing such a clear example. It was very instructive.

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,10:27   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Feb. 19 2018,10:24)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,14:29)
OK we can add "quote-mine" to the long and ever growing list of things blowTARD is ignorant of.

Nice own goal

No, I am quite aware of what a quote mine is. Taking a string of words out of context to suggest a different meaning or argument. Thank you for providing such a clear example. It was very instructive.

Clearly you don't know what a quote-mine is. And clearly you cannot show that I quote-mined anything. You are just an ignorant loser.

But then again English isn't your strong suit whereas lying and bluffing are..

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,12:22   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,17:53)
John Harshman on birds and kinds


 
Quote
I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?


1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

 
Quote
Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.


You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes.

Don't forget Joke says all the evidence supports Biblical baraminology.   But don't call him a YEC because no one knows how old the Earth is.  We just know it isn't exactly 6000 years.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Joe G



Posts: 5113
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,12:30   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Feb. 19 2018,12:22)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,17:53)
John Harshman on birds and kinds


   
Quote
I ask one simple question to begin the discussion: how many different kinds of birds are there? (It should be obvious why I chose birds, but the choice was, from a scientific standpoint, arbitrary.) As a followup, how can you tell? If there are indeed separately created kinds, I would think the divisions would be obvious. Would you agree, and why or why not?


1- No one knows- that is what science is for to help make that determination

2- Body plans and feather type would be a start

3- The divisions could be obvious if you know what you are looking for but given convergence they could be a little blurry

   
Quote
Here’s my answer: 1; all birds belong to the same kind. In fact they form an infinitesimal fraction of a kind, since all life on earth is related. We have discussed the evidence many times here: nested hierarchy, etc. There are no joints at which kinds can easily be carved.


You cannot support your answer. A nested hierarchy is not evidence for Common Descent but is evidence for a Common Design. You are sadly mistaken. And flightless birds and birds of flight is an obvious joint at which kinds can be easily carved.

But all that is moot as John doesn't even have a mechanism for producing birds- he is stuck with populations of prokaryotes.

Don't forget Joke says all the evidence supports Biblical baraminology.   But don't call him a YEC because no one knows how old the Earth is.  We just know it isn't exactly 6000 years.

Wow, timmy's desperate ignorance, while amusing, is not an argument. The evidence fits limited descent with modification, just as I have been saying for years.

And no one knows how old the earth is. That is because in order to make that determination you have to know how the earth was made. Again it isn't my fault that timmy is too willfully ignorant to understand the facts.

But thank you for proving that you are a desperate asshole, timmy.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I usually underestimate my abilities

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2018,12:42   

Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 19 2018,07:40)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,23:08)
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2018,16:50)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2018,16:48)
Nice meltdown Joe

I must be proving that evoTARDs are useless bitches.

Thanks, Dick.

a 12 year old mean girl's attitude with a 7 year old intellect in a 62 year old chubby man's bod.

Yes, that's you to a t, dickie

I have no desire to be in your body ;)

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
  15374 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (513) < ... 371 372 373 374 375 [376] 377 378 379 380 381 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]