• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For scientists who accept evolution

hammegk said:
Of course the just-so-story narrative will be re-written.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I'm keeping up -- this is the "just-so-story narrative" that you yourself admitted made testifiable and falsifiable predictions, but that the weight of the evidence in its support was so great that you didn't expect the predictions to be falsified?

That "just-so-story narrative"?
 
Dr Adequate said:
OK, you might, if you were very unlucky, find a one-off fossil of a freakish disadvantageous macromutation.

But you wouldn't be able to see any progressive development in the fossil record of something getting worse and worse in the short term in order to get better in the long-term.

To be more precise: intermediate forms can't be less well-adapted than the forms which precede them.
Click to expand...

I see. I misread "development" as in "well now, isn't this a disadvantageous development?"
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Is this still true? I thought they'd reclassified dogs as C. lupis now (e.g., the domesticated dog is C. lupis familiaris, the dingo is C. lupis dingo, etc.
Click to expand...
A c. lupis dingo ate my infant homo sapien.
 
Pastafarians and Rastafarians are very siimmilar.

Rastafarians have 'Ganja'
Pastafarians have 'mangia'

Rastafarians have 'Raggae'
Pastafarians have 'Ragu'

Rastafarian have 'Heili Salasi'
Pastafarians are "Highly Salacious"

and lets not mention the Matzofarians!!!
 
BronzeDog said:
Somewhere, I remember a skepchick(?) linking to a website with a number for every creationist claim. Happen to know where that list is?
Click to expand...

It was even nominated for the TLA, but this was during the "lost week". I think it was Beleth making the post, by the way.

And in R&P, I also did the same thing when Christian Dude started spouting fundie lies (pretty much the same stuff as hammegk keeps spouting... And still the latter wonders why we call it creationist arguments.). I even did this before Beleth. Not sure if this was also lost, but you can take a check, if you want to.
 
hammegk said:
Nice try, but that is not a requirement for me to request better empirical justification for your theory than is currently available.
Click to expand...

hammegk said:
Creationists have their own ax to grind that provides an outlet for ideas at times similar to my thinking.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you admit to having your own "thinking". And what is that? And what is the evidence for it?

The danger of throwing together ad hoc arguments so quickly is that you lose track of your previous answers.

There is more than a little of Monty Python's Black Knight about you and, since you haven't realised, someone needs to tell you: you've already lost this argument.
 
hammegk said:
Yes, family canidae are "one 'species'", albeit not by current scientific-evolutionist-accepted definition.
Click to expand...
I think you mean "kind," don't you?
NO "Species Change" has ever been *observed*.
Click to expand...
You're just redefining terms so as to twist the facts to fit your argument. If you define "species" in the way you just have, we're not going to see "Species Change" happening on the sort of timescale over which we're capable of observing. In fact, if you define "species" to include any two animals that can be demonstrated to be related we're not ever going to observe speciation. Presumably if we managed to trace the evolution of dogs from, say, crocodiles (not that I'm suggesting that dogs actually did evolve from crocs) you would just add crocodiles and any intermediate forms to your definition of "dogs."

Now, whose position is unfalsifiable here?
 
Mojo said:
I think you mean "kind," don't you? You're just redefining terms so as to twist the facts to fit your argument. If you define "species" in the way you just have, we're not going to see "Species Change" happening on the sort of timescale over which we're capable of observing. In fact, if you define "species" to include any two animals that can be demonstrated to be related we're not ever going to observe speciation. Presumably if we managed to trace the evolution of dogs from, say, crocodiles (not that I'm suggesting that dogs actually did evolve from crocs) you would just add crocodiles and any intermediate forms to your definition of "dogs."

Now, whose position is unfalsifiable here?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he didn't want to be met with the howls of derisive laughter that would greet use of the word "baramin".

It hasn't worked, those howls sound pretty derisive anyway.
 
delphi_ote said:
Do you actually read the things you post? A non-mainstream scientist hypothesized that the phylogenetic tree should be re-ordered in a journal I can't even find. How does that change anything we've been talking about here?
Click to expand...

If anything it all, it does appear to demonstrate the possibility of scientists "observing" what they want to observe in the fossil record without thoroughly thinking it through or applying their interpretation of the data to experimental scrutiny. Further, it demonstrates the tendency to represent these "observations" as facts in documentaries and science textbooks, again without fully testing the hypotheses out.

This doesn't dispute evolution outright, how could it? Evolution happened and is happening. What it does show is the non-chalance of a form of science that often claims its radical empiricism is above repute. A good scientist welcomes these sorts of challenges if in fact truth is what they are after.

Person X: Birds came from reptiles.
Person Y: How can we be sure?
X: Cause we found this feather.
Y: How do you know its a feather?
X: Cause birds came from reptiles you stupid fundie.
Y: What if birds didn't come from reptiles?
X: The theory is clear: birds came from reptiles. Are you suggesting an alternate theory? Maybe goddidit?
Y: Why do I have to provide an alternate theory if there is demonstrable evidence that yours may be flawed?
X: Because trying to poke holes in my theory isn't science.
Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
X: You started prodding at TOE and you offered no viable alternative.
Y: So an alternate theory is a prerequiste to poking at the theory?
X: There is no alternate theory.
Y: So what is the standard for falsification?
X: We'll let you know when we find one, in the meantime Darwinists can tweak the theory.
Y: You mean move the goalposts?
X: No I mean we can tweak it based on evidence we uncover.
Y: You mean like dino-feathers?
X: The absence of feathers on these creatures is speculative.
Y: So is presence of feathers.
X: But birds came from reptiles, TOE all but demands it.
Y: What if TOE is wrong?
X: Do you have an alternate theory? If not go read your science book you stupid fundie.
Y: I'm just asking a question about your theory.
X: We'll ask the questions, we'll provide the answers, and we'll do the tweaking. Thanks for playing.

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
Y: But I actually did a scientific experiment on your "feathers."
Click to expand...

Don't you mean to say "But I actually did a "scientific experiment" on your feathers."?

Do you have an objection of your own, SF? Y'know, with evidence and stuff?
 
Taffer said:
Don't you mean to say "But I actually did a "scientific experiment" on your feathers."?

Do you have an objection of your own, SF? Y'know, with evidence and stuff?
Click to expand...
He was referring to an article hammegk posted that got lost in his apparent admission of defeat. Of course, even if evolution's wrong on that point, it doesn't mean the theory can't be refined to fit the evidence, like scientific theories do. "Oh, so the criminal stopped by Jay's bar and grill, not Ray's."

Of course, there could be a gaping hole in the experiment I can't spot, not being all that well versed in the fine details of fossilization.

Oh, come to think of it, haven't they traced the probable sequence of mutations by looking at how bird DNA forms a feather? I remember, amusingly enough, one of the genes was named "Sonic Hedgehog."
 
Taffer said:
Don't you mean to say "But I actually did a "scientific experiment" on your feathers."?

Do you have an objection of your own, SF? Y'know, with evidence and stuff?
Click to expand...

My objection is with circular reasoning, that's all. I have no problem with predictive outcomes, that's scientific. But predictive outcomes without follow-up methodology and empirical testing (where in this case it was possible to do so) are assumed outcomes and represent a breakdown of the scientific method.

Flick
 
Probably. Us geneticists (well, I'm only a wanna be) have an odd sense of humor, as can often be seen in the names we give to various mutations.

Another thing I'd like to add (and correct me if I'm wrong), birds evolved from dinosaurs, not reptiles.
 
stamenflicker said:
My objection is with circular reasoning, that's all. I have no problem with predictive outcomes, that's scientific. But predictive outcomes without follow-up methodology and empirical testing (where in this case it was possible to do so) are assumed outcomes and represent a breakdown of the scientific method.

Flick
Click to expand...

Do you have some evidence to say that this was done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom