tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4230880968764237997..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Evolution Professor: Biological Designs Fall Into a Nested HierarchyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63514269591026659302014-06-02T05:01:37.896-07:002014-06-02T05:01:37.896-07:00Jeff: That assumes what you're supposed to pro...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>That assumes what you're supposed to provide evidence for. </i><br /><br />You mean it's hypothetico-deduction. We assume the premise, deduce the implications, then test them. That's called the scientific method. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>1) locally observed fossil succession corresponds with actual fossil succession and </i><br /><br />Geological succession can be determined without regard to fossils. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Evolution can be gradual and causal of speciation and still be cyclical and/or otherwise limited in "vertical" extent. </i><br /><br />The evidence indicates otherwise. <br /><br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84683545164885386212014-06-01T19:15:04.844-07:002014-06-01T19:15:04.844-07:00Jeff: 1) are the tree arranging criteria even remo...Jeff: 1) are the tree arranging criteria even remotely related to the known effects or statistical effects of historical mutations?<br /><br />Z: While we can't observed historical mutations, we can show that observed rates of evolution are greater than the historical rates of evolution.<br /><br />J: That assumes what you're supposed to provide evidence for. You're confused.<br /><br />Jeff: 2) are the ghost ranges posited to render the tree consistent with inferred fossil succession (which requires a lot of interpretation in the first place) posited arbitrarily or based on plausible geological, taphonomic, ecological inferences?<br /><br />Z: Generally yes. Of course there are going to be anomalies, especially at the limits of observational resolution.<br /><br />J: On the contrary, stratigraphic correlation is done on the utterly over-simplistic assumption that<br /><br />1) locally observed fossil succession corresponds with actual fossil succession and <br /><br />2) actual fossil succession corresponds with existential succession.<br /><br />It's circular reasoning all the way down. Even Last Thursdayism fares well that way.<br /><br />Z: The good news is that science allows us to reach some reasonable, albeit tenative, conclusions, with less than complete knowledge.<br /><br />J: There's nothing "reasonable" about a hypothesis for which there is no inductive evidence.<br /><br />Z: The only necessary assumptions are gradual evolution and the process of speciation, for which there is direct observational evidence. <br /><br />J: Evolution can be gradual and causal of speciation and still be cyclical and/or otherwise limited in "vertical" extent. <br /><br />Moreover, there are tons of hypothetical histories consistent with your assumptions. Otherwise, you wouldn't arbitrarily posit contingent branchings in terms of the effects of contingencies like asteriod impacts, etc. <br /><br />Once you say one can speculate on historical branching patterns, you've already rendered the probability (as calculable by current knowledge) of any one such tree VERY small.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16852362499722076519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48433999799298702772014-05-25T05:08:27.395-07:002014-05-25T05:08:27.395-07:00Alan Fox: So Hitchens was right that Mohammed plag...<b>Alan Fox</b>: <i>So Hitchens was right that Mohammed plagiarized the Old (and New) Testament to come up with the Koran and Islam. </i><br /><br />It wasn't plagiarism per se, but explicit incorporation. <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible<br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40966700424999413612014-05-24T23:58:08.433-07:002014-05-24T23:58:08.433-07:00Really?
Do muslims also track their ancestry from...Really?<br /><br />Do muslims also track their ancestry from Adam and Eve? I never knew that. So Hitchens was right that Mohammed plagiarized the Old (and New) Testament to come up with the Koran and Islam.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15978494196908808562014-05-24T23:54:54.467-07:002014-05-24T23:54:54.467-07:00Hey Chubs!
Congrats on coming third in the electi...Hey Chubs!<br /><br />Congrats on coming third in the elections for library monitor.Alan Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16470368958109056177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41278321225057122402014-05-19T15:00:48.076-07:002014-05-19T15:00:48.076-07:00natschuster: That makes the problem worse.
Heh. S...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>That makes the problem worse.</i><br /><br />Heh. So you say you grew up, that your adult form developed from a baby, then toddler, then teen, then adult. So you show a picture when you're 10 and when you're 18. The skeptic asks, where's the inbetweens to show that you actually grew up. So you show a picture when you were 15. Ah, says the skeptic, now there's two gaps!<br /><br />The number of fossils is only the tiniest fraction of the total organisms that have ever lived. All they provide is a snapshot. But we can predict the existence of transitional fossils. Keep in mind that transitionals don't have to be direct ancestors, but finding hominids with brains intermediate between humans and chimpanzees is important confirmation of a transitional process. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20830172230285632352014-05-19T12:59:31.095-07:002014-05-19T12:59:31.095-07:00That makes the problem worse. Where are all the tr...That makes the problem worse. Where are all the transitionals, if they really existed? And I would only give half credit for Tiktaalik, since it isn't the real ancestor. That's still missing.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60354575439574454332014-05-19T12:41:48.349-07:002014-05-19T12:41:48.349-07:00natschuster: How many transitionals exited that ha...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>How many transitionals exited that have not been found </i><br /><br />For every transitional found, there's two more gaps! <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6475296242703779982014-05-19T12:32:37.381-07:002014-05-19T12:32:37.381-07:00Zach:
How many transitionals exited that have not...Zach:<br /><br />How many transitionals exited that have not been found, Each and every transitional that has not been found can count as a failed prediction of evolution. So the half dozen or so times that evolution got it right compared to the hundreds of failed predictions, may very well be just lucky guesses,natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61927679992889594612014-05-19T07:38:14.842-07:002014-05-19T07:38:14.842-07:00Joe G: He didn't.
Just a really odd coincide...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>He didn't. </i><br /><br />Just a really odd coincidence, that he would be wondering an Arctic wilderness looking for a never before seen fishapod, and just stumble across one. Lucky? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-34288150305890961632014-05-19T07:22:42.957-07:002014-05-19T07:22:42.957-07:00Zachriel:
As fishapods don't exist today, how ...Zachriel:<br /><i>As fishapods don't exist today, how did Shubin know they once existed?</i><br /><br />He didn't. However that they existed is not evidence for common descent.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82696104732258712582014-05-19T07:20:35.779-07:002014-05-19T07:20:35.779-07:00No one goes looking for a transitional form millio...No one goes looking for a transitional form millions of years AFTER the alleged transition. That is because no one knows how long they will last.<br /><br />And that is why Shubin wrote what he did and that is also why he didn't find what he was looking for. What he was looking for occurred millions of years earlier than Tiktaalik.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77428378298992420782014-05-19T07:16:25.672-07:002014-05-19T07:16:25.672-07:00Joe G: No one goes looking for transitional forms ...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>No one goes looking for transitional forms millions of years after the transition. </i><br /><br />Darwin pointed out that transitional forms can be extant. However, the most interesting forms, ones with the most primitive traits, are going to be near the point of divergence. <br /><br />As fishapods don't exist today, how did Shubin know they once existed?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52228968207870460102014-05-19T07:12:26.099-07:002014-05-19T07:12:26.099-07:00And is common descent the only explanation for fis...And is common descent the only explanation for fishapods? Nope, not by a long shot. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44385854317071988392014-05-19T07:10:42.310-07:002014-05-19T07:10:42.310-07:00He said that his transitional form would be found ...<b>He said that his transitional form would be found before tetrapods. </b><br /><br /><i>No, he didn't say that</i><br /><br />Yes, he did. No one goes looking for transitional forms millions of years after the transition. Only retards do something like that.<br /><br /><i>Shubin found a transitional form, </i><br /><br />In the wrong place- that is according to Shubin.<br /><br />Again no one goes looking for transional forms millions of years after the transition. That is a retards' errandJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88330178858953650642014-05-19T07:04:00.658-07:002014-05-19T07:04:00.658-07:00Joe G: He said that his transitional form would be...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>He said that his transitional form would be found before tetrapods. </i><br /><br />No, he didn't say that. He said that strata before the oldest known tetrapods would be a good place to look. The oldest known tetrapods doesn't necessarily mean the oldest tetrapods. <br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>According to Shubin's own logic, had he known of the Polish tetrapod tracks he wouldn't have even been looking where he did. </i><br /><br />As we pointed out, the Fram formation is just part of the Devonian found on South Ellesmere Island. Not only did they want a date close to the divergence, but they also needed one associated with a semi-aquatic environment. They still would have probably ended up looking about where they did.<br /><br /><b>Joe G</b>: <i>However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. Shubin found a transitional form, which is evidence of the transition. He didn't say a direct ancestor of land vertebrates, but a "relative of the first fish to walk on land". <br /><br />As fishapods don't exist today, how did Shubin know they once existed? Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65548897272828820642014-05-19T07:00:38.954-07:002014-05-19T07:00:38.954-07:00OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed ...OK he did it just exactly as described, bracketed the dates. However his dates were wrong, which means he did not find evidence for the transition, which occurred many millions of years earlier.<br /><br />In order to find what he was looking for, evidence of the transition, he needed to focus on rocks 400 million years old, as the new data puts terapods in existence about 395 million years ago.<br /><br />Zachriel loses again, as usual.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24938724926509053762014-05-19T06:59:35.620-07:002014-05-19T06:59:35.620-07:00According to Shubin's own logic, had he known ...According to Shubin's own logic, had he known of the Polish tetrapod tracks he wouldn't have even been looking where he did.<br /><br />That is a fact which Zachriel would have known had it read and understood what Shubin wrote.<br /><br />Deal with that or admit that you are an ignorant ass on an agenda.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85216043921724245482014-05-19T06:57:58.532-07:002014-05-19T06:57:58.532-07:00Zachriel:
Shubin never said that a transitional fo...Zachriel:<br /><i>Shubin never said that a transitional form has to be in an exact place and time, only that it was a reasonable place to look. </i><br /><br />He said that his transitional form would be found before tetrapods. He was wrong.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90409389448653260332014-05-19T06:57:44.374-07:002014-05-19T06:57:44.374-07:00Joe G: And yet we don't see Tiktaalik around t...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>And yet we don't see Tiktaalik around today. </i><br /><br />Add "might" to the words you don't seem to understand. As fishapods don't exist today, how did Shubin know they once existed? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-710356700681989372014-05-19T06:56:51.363-07:002014-05-19T06:56:51.363-07:00What Shubin said was he was looking for "rela...What Shubin said was he was looking for "relatives of the first fish to walk on land". That does not imply a direct line of descent. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-65074212839631334272014-05-19T06:56:07.421-07:002014-05-19T06:56:07.421-07:00Zachriel:
A transitional form might be found at an...Zachriel:<br /><i>A transitional form might be found at any time after the divergence. </i><br /><br />And yet we don't see Tiktaalik around today. You must be lying, again.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39855382101707886232014-05-19T06:55:03.026-07:002014-05-19T06:55:03.026-07:00Joe G: Again I will go with what Shubin wrote
Sh...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>Again I will go with what Shubin wrote </i><br /><br />Shubin never said that a transitional form has to be in an exact place and time, only that it was a reasonable place to look. <br /><br />"organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms."<br />http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03<br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66027614342289197802014-05-19T06:54:10.153-07:002014-05-19T06:54:10.153-07:00Zachriel:
A transitional form might be found at an...Zachriel:<br /><i>A transitional form might be found at any time after the divergence. </i><br /><br />True, but Shubin wasn't looking for just a transitional form. Also no one knows how long after the alleged divergence transitional forms will last. Making yours an emotional plea lacking scientific rigor.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32125195079538455582014-05-19T06:52:23.019-07:002014-05-19T06:52:23.019-07:00Zachriel:
A transitional form, an organism that ex...Zachriel:<br /><i>A transitional form, an organism that exhibits traits common to both the posited ancestor and descendant, is evidence of the transition.</i><br /><br />That is incorrect. The transitional form has to be in the right place and time before it can be considered as evidence for the transition.<br /><br />Again I will go with what Shubin wrote over an ignorant ass such as yourself.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com