 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dust wrote: | Twaddle, Twaddle, Twaddle, Twaddle, Twaddle.............
Dust's Theroy of Twaddle.........
Twaddle + Twaddle = Twaddle |
 LOL!
And even twaddle evolves.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gbundy, I did not see anything to respond to. Human embryos do not have gill slits and for you to assert that they do in direct contravention to the quoted text book is beyond understanding. No point in further discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steen
Little Guppy
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 38
Location: Upper Midwest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | | Steen, you have charged me with making false statements. Lets review: |
Lets.
| Quote: | | I said Darwin's theory on the Origin of the Species was a theory as defined by the dictionary. I stand by that statement. |
Eventually, you did make that statement in a post that was nothing but a personal attack and therefore to be ignored. I am still waiting for moderators to rap your knuckles over that one. Rest assured that otherwise, I WILL deal with that pack of deceit and stinking lies of that post myself.
That aside, I don't care much how the dictionary denies what Darwin wrote. We are discussing science here, and in science, the word "theory" has a VERY SPECIFIC meaning as the end product of the Scientific Method. Yes, you can come up with your creationist claptrap nonsense and falsehoods and try to claim that what Darwin wrote was a "theory." That would be an outright dishonesty, an attempt by you to lie about reality. In SCIENCE, what Darwin wrote was a HYPOTHESIS. If you don't even know what the Scientific Method is and where a Scientific Theory or hypothesis fit into that, then you really have no business debating how valid that science is. That would simply be dishonest demagoguery. Are you a dishonest demagogue (Sorry to have to deal with this myself, but the moderators clearly are NOT dealing with your posts, so I'll do it myself).
So the conclusion: Anybody who tries to portray science as "only a theory" using the general, non-scientific meaning of the concept are outright dishonest. Are you a stinking liar, or are you going to deal with this in an honest, straightforward way? What Darwin wrote was not a Scientific Theory; it was a Scientific Hypothesis. If I have to educate you about the Scientific Method and what this is, then you frankly are to ignorant about science to have this discussion. When you want to talk about science, then we MUST be able to assume that you know what science is. So far you have not shown this to be the case.
(Now, moderators, any time you actually want to do something about this and have VAN adhere to the forum rules, let me know. Until then, I am assuming the right to deal with the dishonesty myself, assuming that you have no interest in moderating this, as attested by his initial personal attack still standing unmoderated)
| Quote: | | I ignored the other examples? No, I specifically mentioned birds and salamanders as ring species, and I assert they choose not to breed but have the capacity to breed viable, able to breed, offspring. |
Nope, you did NOT anywhere mention the Greenish Warblers or the Ensatina Salamanders. That claim is false.
(No, don't try to edit it into a post somewhere now, as it will show your late editing. Easier to admit that what you posted wasn't true.)
| Quote: | | Now a word on species. |
All my examples were of newly formed species through the process of ring-speciation. Your claim is false.
| Quote: | | Yes, we can classify a hybrid as a new species. |
No, we can not. Your claim shows a serious deficit in knowledge of even simple biology.
| Quote: | | But an arbitrary taxilogical classification is like proving a point by concocting a self serving definition. |
Given that taxonomy is decided only after serious evaluation by multiple experts in the field, your claim of it being arbitrary is another outright falsehood.
| Quote: | | Thus we can call hybrids new species |
No, we can not. You are TRYING to do so, in violation of established biological science. Your self-serving attempt at distorting reality merely shows that your argument is without merit unless you fudge and distort facts. That is not a good foundation for having credibility.
| Quote: | | but this is micro-evolution not macro-evolution. |
Really? What is the difference?
| Quote: | | New information has not been added to the resultant DNA, just as when any to animals mate and produce an offspring different from themselves. |
And how do you know this? Exactly HOW would you measure “information” to know that this is the case? Fascinating that you know something here than no scientist knows. What is your unique inside scoop that the established scientists in the field have missed? Guess most biologists will have to hand their PhD back in because they are wrong. After all, you determined this, right?
So what is “new” information? You must be the expert, or at least know what it is about.
| Quote: | | None of my remarks are aimed at the "current theory of evolution" but only the published theory in Darwin's book. |
So you claim. That means that all your references to current science were in error, right? And that any apparent attack on the Scientific Theory of Evolution was an oversight and misunderstanding, right?
| Quote: | | I can debate that as a topic because I can check assertions against the book. |
Which book? Darwin wrote several. That aside, if you have “the book,” then you also have all of his arguments. What justification do you then have for claiming that Darwin’s hypothesis was wrong or falsified, when you haven’t even dealt with most of it?
| Quote: | | I have not attempted to discredit Darwin's hypothesis as a whole, since that is an unstated position. |
How so? You are saying that Darwin’s hypothesis is unstated, yet you claim to have falsified it? You simply aren’t making sense here.
| Quote: | | I have shown Darwin's theory as published in Origin of the Species is bogus based on several key premises, |
This is a false claim. You have shown some minor incorrect assumptions in Darwin’s original HYPOTHESIS, that’s all. By no means have you done any serious damage to Darwin’s Hypothesis as a whole. You claim to have the book, and as such, you would also know that there is a lot that you have NOT discredited in this hypothesis from more than 150 years ago.
| Quote: | | including acquired traits based on life conditions being inherited, |
I would be a touch careful about that one. This is more a Lamarch idea than anything Darwin suggested.
| Quote: | | the fossil record not supporting gradual and continual change, |
As this does occur across some of the fossil spectrum, no you have not disproved anything with that claim.
| Quote: | | and evidence of an ancient progenitor being revealing by branchial slits in human embryos. |
Hmm, was THAT the specific and all-determining evidence that Darwin lists for that hypothesis? Careful now. I also have access to the book as well, so you might want to modify that claim a bit
| Quote: | | Your assertion that I am ignorant is without merit, an adhomenim, no more. |
Not an ad hominem, as I provided specific evidence for this, and did so in context of you misconstruing the information. I was not making that statement independent of the topic at hand. Thus this claim of yours is without merit. Disprove my observation of your knowledge and skills in this area, or let my observation stand.
| Quote: | | I make the claim that if a mixed pair produces viable, able to breed offspring, the hybrid may be classified as a new species, |
That IS your claim, yes. Actual biological science concludes that your claim is utter nonsense. You need to read up a lot more on speciation and hybridization.
| Quote: | | but the action does not pass the test of speciation. Consider this, the offspring of the intermediate birds in the ring are viable, why not call them hybrids and new species. Answer, because they breed. QED |
As this is not the definitive test of speciation, your complete and exclusive fixation on the issue of hybridization is not evidence of anything but your ignorance of what speciation is.
I do not have the time nor energy to provide you with a college-level biology education. This is stuff you are responsible for learning on your own. If you want to criticize a Scientific Theory, a Scientific Hypothesis or a well-established scientific concept, then it is YOUR responsibility to know what you are talking about in order to not waste everybody’s time with irrelevant, already disproved stuff.
| Quote: | | I do not need to explain the use of the word created with regard to the new phyla of the Cambrian explosion. Use a dictionary. |
Really? Is the context a creationist one, a scientific one, or just some day-to-day vague and imprecise word use?
| Quote: | | Again, you make the charge I am trying to discredit evolution. |
Actually, I was only pondering that possibility
| Quote: | | Why, when I have explicitly stated my demonstration is against Darwin's theory of Evolution. |
There is no such thing. There is Darwin’s original HYPOTHESIS and there is a current Scientific THEORY of Evolution. You presumably are only talking about the former, right?
| Quote: | | I have not pointed out a few areas where Darwin got it wrong, I have pointed out this his underlying premise was wrong because he misinterpreted the data. |
I must disagree with that assessment. Your few claims, some of which are incorrect or seem distorting of the original premise does NOT show that Darwin’s underlying premise, that of Natural Selection, is wrong. In fact, you have said NOTHING that contradicts Natural Selection, and as such, this latest claim of yours is outright false.
| Quote: | | That is why we have neo-darwinism today. |
What is neo-Darwinism?
_________________
Geology: fossils of different ages
Paleontology: fossil sequence & species change over time.
Taxonomy: biological relationships
Evolution: explanation that ties it all together.
Creationism: squeezing eyes shut, wailing "DOES NOT!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | | Gbundy, I did not see anything to respond to. Human embryos do not have gill slits and for you to assert that they do in direct contravention to the quoted text book is beyond understanding. No point in further discussion. |
What I am saying is that changing the name of a structure does not make the structure disappear. I agree that "pharyngeal slits" or "pharyngeal arches" is a preferable name. But this is still the same embryonic feature Darwin was referring to as "branchial slits". It hasn't disappeared just because the name was changed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2004 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Van wrote: | I have not attempted to discredit Darwin's hypothesis as a whole, since that is an unstated position. I have shown Darwin's theory as published in Origin of the Species is bogus based on several key premises, including acquired traits based on life conditions being inherited, the fossil record not supporting gradual and continual change, and evidence of an ancient progenitor being revealing by branchial slits in human embryos.
|
To speak only to the matter of gradual change, yes, the fossil record does support it in many situations.
Here are a few.
PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites. Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2. http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm
A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of "gradual" evolution of trilobites in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian gradual change of form. Describes transitionals
(All emphases added).
The last one is particularly interesting as it is a study by one of the fathers of punctuated equilibrium and shows how that thesis and gradualism are two aspects of the same process. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is concluded. Ring Species do not demonstrate macro-evolution. Darwin's theory of Evolution has been demonstrated false, not by me, but by science. The continuing posts are a smokescreen to obscure these facts. Definitional arguments of no merit. Ad homenims. Distinctions without a difference. But judge for yourselves.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5303
Location: Missouri
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2004 11:09 am Post subject: Thread is Locked |
|
|
I have locked this thread!  If I see another thread like this.
Everybody throwing the names of hurt at each other I'm going to do more than lock your thread. This is all uncalled for. & I won't put up with it.
Everybody thinks that they're no-it-alls. But they don't even know the first thing about getting along together
This time it's a warning the next time you could be gone! 
THIS HAS BEEN A NOTICE TO ALL!
_________________
Much Love Nobby
CVP Smilies
dictionary Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
