For scientists who accept evolution

[hammegk]

You are the one that argues that the "Origin of X exists," not us. "Dogs is dogs" anyone?

Duh.

Your bunch are the folks arguing x=species, but notice you can't even decide what a species is.

Yet, do you wish to aver dog=cat?

Wherever the evidence suggests that they do.

You know, evidence?

Yeah I do know. So where does Archy fit with this new evidence? Still, won't you & The textbooks miss a favorite "intermediate form"?

The stuff that you've never been able to produce to support any coherent alternative idea to the theory of evolution?

Nice try, but it's still not my problem to propose alternate hypotheses when I ask you to support yours.

Please, be specific...

Please be extremely specific:

Umm, sure. I need to be, but y'all can't even define Species that you are preaching the Origin of.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Your bunch are the folks arguing x=species, but notice you can't even decide what a species is.

Funny, to me, it seems we've arrived at the consensus that it's arbitrary. You just change whenever it suits you.

Umm, sure. I need to be, but y'all can't even define Species that you are preaching the Origin of.

It's a convenience label for broad regions in the gene pool. How often, and in how many ways do we have to say it? I suppose next you're going to claim that oceanography is bunk if we can't define where the Pacific ends and the Atlantic begins.

 

[Mojo]

Yet, do you wish to aver dog=cat?

Well, while Buckle v. Holmes [1926] 2 KB 125 does indeed say something a bit like this, it's not remotely relevant to anything in this thread. And as nobody in this thread has suggested anything of the sort, I think I'll call strawman.

 

[delphi_ote]

Duh.

Your bunch are the folks arguing x=species, but notice you can't even decide what a species is.

Yet, do you wish to aver dog=cat?

How eloquent, hammy. "Duh" is truly a word passed down from the ancient philosophers. How wonderful it is that you continue that fine tradition.

Species is a blurred concept because of evolution. That is why you can't define it. If one species cannot evolve into another, surely "species" must be a rigid concept, and a perfect definition wouldn't be hard to find. Surely someone with the wisdom of Socrates and Solomon like yourself could enlighten us. But even something so obvious as "dogs is dogs" is not true when we actually look at the facts.

At some level, yes. The absurd assumption you are making is actually true. Dog = cat. Obviously they cannot breed with one another, cannot survive in the same habitat, have different physiology, behavior and diets, etc. etc. That's why we've stuck two different labels on them. They seem different.

Yet they share a large number of genes that they and the rest of Carnivora inhereted from a common ancestor from the Paleocene. We can't see each step of variation between dogs and cats, because they've been dead for millions of years. We can see lots of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in the dog and cat genomes. If all of those intermediate steps were alive today (which is essentially situation we see with dogs and wolves,) there would be confusion as to just where cats ended and dogs began.

 

[Taffer]

At some level, yes. The absurd assumption you are making is actually true. Dog = cat. Obviously they cannot breed with one another, cannot survive in the same habitat, have different physiology, behavior and diets, etc. etc. That's why we've stuck two different labels on them. They seem different.

When compared to, for example, Prokaryotes, there is basically no difference between cats and dogs.

 

[Mercutio]

When compared to, for example, Prokaryotes, there is basically no difference between cats and dogs.

"Kitty!"

 

[Bronze Dog]

All this talk of species definitions suddenly reminds me of arguments whether the Mississippi river is a tributary of the Missouri river, or vice-versa. The natural world doesn't care: It's all just moving water.

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

Glad to see you back hammegk. I must alert you to the fact that there is prime troll food for you in my posts above. Don´t be shy.

Furthermore, I´m curious (since I haven´t met you before), as to your, you know, scientific theories (or personal views, whatever you find applicable) regarding:

i) Biology. Are there any species? Are there "baramins"? More importantly, have all species been created separately or have they evolved in any way? Are they related, by common ancestry or by something else, or maybe not at all? Please be specific.

ii) "Materialism" (as I recall you have used that word earlier, correct me if I´m wrong). Is there anything inherently more "materialistic" in biology (specifically, the TOE) than in, say, meteorology? Why or why not? Please be...oh, you get the picture.

Cheers,

/The Rev.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

Hammy's short-term memory seems to have been damaged by his self-destruction and he has forgotten to answer the question I previously posed.

Or maybe he really is just to embarrassed to expose his own theory to ridicule instead of wheeling out the discredited nonsense that he has produced so far.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I must say this is the first time that I've paid extended attention to one of these threads here. I'd not realised that the opposition is just as rubbish as on the alt med threads: argument by blind assertion; constant shifting of ground to hide errors; blithe ignoring of the fact they have been shot down in flames. All a bit depressing.

Cranky ideas just attract cranks, I suppose. If they could think straight they wouldn't advocate the weird stuff the come up with, but what is disappointing is the level of dishonesty that is revealed.

 

[hammegk]

... argument by blind assertion; constant shifting of ground to hide errors; blithe ignoring of the fact they have been shot down in flames. All a bit depressing.

Damn, I thought you were a scientist-naturalist-materialist. Why are you saying things like that about evolutionists?

Furthermore, I´m curious (since I haven´t met you before)

Odd. You seem familiar to me.

i) Biology. Are there any species?

Define species. But yes, definitions are possible to ensure 'species' exist.

Are there "baramins"?

Darned if know. What are felidae? Canidae?

More importantly, have all species been created separately or have they evolved in any way?

It is a fact that mutation occurs.

Are they related, by common ancestry or by something else, or maybe not at all? Please be specific.

They share a number of characteristics including but not limited to physical morphology and similarities at dna level.

ii) "Materialism" (as I recall you have used that word earlier, correct me if I´m wrong).

Here socky, socky.

Is there anything inherently more "materialistic" in biology (specifically, the TOE) than in, say, meteorology? Why or why not? Please be...oh, you get the picture.

If you choose a worldview based on materialism -- or may I say ~Idealism -- what else is there; biology, meteorology, cosmology, etc are in the same {physical} boat.

We can see lots of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in the dog and cat genomes.

Which fossils do you like best? Perhaps you'll have better luck there than with Archy.


Finally, my question -- asked a number of times now -- do textbooks still trot out the example of Eohippus to modern horse as macro-evolution?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Hammy's short-term memory seems to have been damaged by his self-destruction and he has forgotten to answer the question I previously posed.

Or maybe he really is just to embarrassed to expose his own theory to ridicule instead of wheeling out the discredited nonsense that he has produced so far.

Hammy posts. Hammy runs.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Define species. But yes, definitions are possible to ensure 'species' exist.

Please define one you'd like to use and stick with it!

 

[delphi_ote]

Damn, I thought you were a scientist-naturalist-materialist. Why are you saying things like that about evolutionists?

Ah, Bertrand Russel's famous "I know you are but what am I" argument. Clearly we're just not at hammy's level of discourse.

Which fossils do you like best? Perhaps you'll have better luck there than with Archy.

I think I've spoon fed you enough research about dogs and wolves to last you a while. If you were actually hungry, I'd be glad to feed you more. I think I'll let that digest a while, because I'd rather you did vomit up more nonsense. You've made a big enough mess already.

Poor hammy. Science just doesn't seem to agree with your little tummy.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Damn, I thought you were a scientist-naturalist-materialist.

You really haven't been paying attention.

Finally, my question -- asked a number of times now -- do textbooks still trot out the example of Eohippus to modern horse as macro-evolution?

I don't know. Perhaps you should explain yourself more clearly and you'll get an answer.

Define "species" while you're about it. "dogs is dogs" is both infantile and wrong as you have had explained to you.

Could another regular contributor explain what Hammy's point is. As of now he has posted 4,666 times at this forum. Is he just a Creationist who dare not admit it in public? Is he just trying to annoy? Is it always this inane? Has he ever made clear what he is trying to say, or trying not to say, perhaps?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I believe he's a typical jumpy, acrobatic IDer. I seem to recall one thread where I got him to tell me the basis of his belief in ID: He has an opinion that life is special. While I agree with the opinion, it's hardly proof of the divine.

A couple days ago, I tried searching for that thread, but couldn't find it. I'm worried I might be suffering from cryptomnesia or something.

 

[delphi_ote]

I must say this is the first time that I've paid extended attention to one of these threads here. I'd not realised that the opposition is just as rubbish as on the alt med threads: argument by blind assertion; constant shifting of ground to hide errors; blithe ignoring of the fact they have been shot down in flames. All a bit depressing.

That's the thing that bothers me the most about the whole ID debate. There's such a thin cote of PR varnish on the creationist nut jobs, but the press and public just don't go deep enough to see how dishonest and childish they are. They blatantly talk out of both sides of their mouths, but almost nobody calls them to task for it in the press.

For reference, by "they" I mean Behe, Dembski, the ID fellows, and the like.

 

[Hawk one]

A couple days ago, I tried searching for that thread, but couldn't find it. I'm worried I might be suffering from cryptomnesia or something.

Is your problem perhaps solvable by using this alternative searching method?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I tried that, but didn't get anywhere. Maybe I should search for posts my hammy that mention me? I'll try some more searches, later.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

That's the thing that bothers me the most about the whole ID debate. There's such a thin cote of PR varnish on the creationist nut jobs, but the press and public just don't go deep enough to see how dishonest and childish they are. They blatantly talk out of both sides of their mouths, but almost nobody calls them to task for it in the press.

For reference, by "they" I mean Behe, Dembski, the ID fellows, and the like.

A case in point was this feeble interview with Behe in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

As we often find with alt meddlers, the dimwit interviewer is insufficiently "on top" of the subject to prevent the subject just trotting out platitudes that might seem reasonable to the ignorant but don't bear a moment's educated thought.

The dimwit in the case of that interview is Professor John Sutherland floundering out of his depth.

Come to think of it, I think the good Professor may be in need of an epistle from a certain monkey.