For scientists who accept evolution

[Schneibster]

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.

And one cannot help but note that you were not, in fact, specific in supporting your arguments. That leads directly to the conclusion that you cannot, in fact, support them.

/me observes telltale signs of smoke, flames, and ejected debris in the rapidly descending structure of your argument, if indeed it can actually be said to exhibit anything that could objectively be assessed as "structure" or to be anything that remotely resembles an "argument." This particular piece of debris right here looks suspiciously like a parachute, but unfortunately does not appear to be deploying correctly.

 

[Melendwyr]

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.

In our society, it's considered impolite to analyze someone's arguments, much less criticize or reject them. Quiet acceptance seems to be the only polite response to statements.

I suspect this is why our society is rapidly falling into ignorance and idiocy.

 

[Bronze Dog]

In our society, it's considered impolite to analyze someone's arguments, much less criticize or reject them. Quiet acceptance seems to be the only polite response to statements.

I suspect this is why our society is rapidly falling into ignorance and idiocy.

The next time I consider keeping quiet, I'll try to remind myself it's my civic duty to laugh derisively and point out every logical fallacy.

 

[Melendwyr]

The next time I consider keeping quiet, I'll try to remind myself it's my civic duty to laugh derisively and point out every logical fallacy.

Bless you, sir. May you have hundreds of fat children! (The preceding statement is intended as a benediction, just in case there's any uncertainty.)

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It seems we've been here before.

I think, Hammy, that unless you present your "thinking" in your own words you are not deserving of any further responses. If you do not want to debate honestly I'll not debate you at all. If you do start from some form of religious standpoint, you may choose to ponder your personal dishonesty in these discussions.

So, a nice clear statement of your "thinking" is about due...

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

I thought we'd discussed that article here, but I thnk it may have disappeared into the haze of our "lost week", but Sutherland does get roasted here;

http://www.badscience.net/?p=173

 

[hammegk]

It seems we've been here before.

I'll be darned. Four people! And the main opposition tbk, hcg, jk(Hal'sPal), er, and Shemp???.

So, a nice clear statement of your "thinking" is about due...

I think you forgot my question to you:
"Tell me why placebos ever "work", and why homepathic solutions can't do the same. Discussing conmen who sell snake-oil is a different topic, and I'm confident we are 100% in agreement in that discussion, a discussion that would actually fall within the JREF 'mission'."

I think I've spoon fed you enough research about dogs and wolves to last you a while.

OK. I have one for you. Is a cheetah a dog or a cat? Why?

 

[Mojo]

OK. I have one for you. Is a cheetah a dog or a cat? Why?

Cat. Why should it be a dog?

 

[Taffer]

OK. I have one for you. Is a cheetah a dog or a cat? Why?

A cat. Because it has very similar form, very similar genes, and very similar morphology as other cats.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'll be darned. Four people! And the main opposition tbk, hcg, jk(Hal'sPal), er, and Shemp???.



I think you forgot my question to you:
"Tell me why placebos ever "work", and why homepathic solutions can't do the same. Discussing conmen who sell snake-oil is a different topic, and I'm confident we are 100% in agreement in that discussion, a discussion that would actually fall within the JREF 'mission'."


OK. I have one for you. Is a cheetah a dog or a cat? Why?

Hmm. He's rattled, but still to afraid to show his "thinking".

Hammy, all you have to do is give one demonstration of honest engagement and you could begin to buy back some lost credibility. I have no credibility problem, you do.

 

[Mojo]

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?

I really don't know. When I first noticed him I thought he was being deliberately obtuse in order to make some kind of point about scepticism, because I didn't think anyone could be that stupid. But he just keeps doing it. So I've revised my opinion.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I quite like this quote from the talkorigins page on horses;

"Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It's sad"

 

[Melendwyr]

Considering the nature of the statements hammy recently had in his signature, I think it's pretty obvious that he's just a troll.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1221357#post1221357

(I hope the signature continues to show up for a while)

And by troll, I don't mean a person who says things I don't like. I refer to the original definition: a person who says inflammatory things for the sole person of provoking a major response and the resulting personal attention.

 

[hammegk]

I quite like this quote from the talkorigins page on horses;

"Truly persistent and/or desperate creationists are thus forced into illogical, unjustified attacks of fossil dating methods, or irrelevant and usually flat-out wrong proclamations about a supposed "lack" of "transitional forms". It's sad"

Also from there:

A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils?

Who in the world denies "horses" mutated? Still, a horse is a horse ... of course of course....

by troll, I don't mean a person who says things I don't like. I refer to the original definition: a person who says inflammatory things for the sole person of provoking a major response and the resulting personal attention.

I didn't think anyone could be that stupid. But he just keeps doing it. So I've revised my opinion.

Try ignore. Or, failing that, try posting something of merit to the discussion; your personal opinions of me don't add much.

 

[delphi_ote]

OK. I have one for you. Is a cheetah a dog or a cat? Why?

So... I'm supposed to do more research for you while you dance around without actually stating your own position?

You'll just vomit it back up, but I'll go ahead and post more research anyway. You're lucky I like cheetahs.
Cheetah: Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae Acinonyx jubatus
House cat: Animalia Chordate Mammalia Carnivora Felidae Felis domestica
Domestic dog: Animalia Chordate Mammalia Carnivora Canidae Canis lupus familiaris

The cheeta shares these things in common with dogs and cats:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Animalia.html
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Chordata.html
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Mammalia.html
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Carnivora.html

They're the same all the way down to:

[T]heir enlarged fourth upper premolar and first lower molar, which together form an efficient shear for cutting meat and tendon. These teeth are referred to as the carnassial pair.

That's a lot to have in common when you think of the diversity of species in nature.

Cheetahs and dogs differ here:

The legs and feet of canids are moderately elongated, and their stance is digitigrade. Usually, five toes are found on the forefeet and four on the hindfeet (one genus, Lycaon, has only 4 toes on the forefeet). The metapodials are long but not fused. Unlike the Felidae, canids have non-retractile claws. This means that they are worn down by activity and are not the specialized weapons found in some other carnivores. All male canids have a well-developed baculum.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canidae.html

Physical features characterizing felids are a short rostrum, a vestigial or absent baculum, and retractable claws. Distal segments of digits in the relaxed position are pulled back and up into a sheath by an elastic segment, which prevents claws from getting blunt. The cheetah is an exception; it cannot retract its claws, and when attacking it tends to bowl over prey much like many canids. Cats have five toes on their forefeet and four on their hindfeet. They are digitigrade, and their metapodials are moderately long but never fused.

Besides having a short rostrum, the skulls of cats have bullae that are large and divided by a septum; no alisphenoid canal, and paroccipital processes flattened against the bullae.

Dentition is reduced in felids; shortening the jaw results in increased force at the bite point. The dental formula is 3/3, 1/1, 2-3/2, 1/1 = 28-30. The incisors are small and chisel-like. The canines vary from medium-sized to enormous in the extinct sabertooth cats. The upper canine is larger than the lower. The first premolar is absent; the second, when present, is atrophied. The molar is small and simple in structure. Carnassials are very well developed and cheek teeth are exclusively of the shearing type; cats do not crush or grind their food.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Felidae.html

The animals in Felidae and Canidae share common ancestry with the other animals in Carnivora. We know this, because they share morphological and genetic traits and evidence of the gradual modification exists in the fossil record. Felines developed from some ancestor that had retractible claws. Dogs followed another path. Having the combination of traits each family has developed allows them to fill a certain niche. These families became successful paradigms because they fill those particular niches. The "in between" species weren't as successful and mostly died off.

Fossil records of the Canidae date back to the Oligocene and the Miocene, making them one of the oldest extant groups of carnivores. Canids are probably an early offshoot of the caniform lineage (which includes mustelids, procyonids, ursids, phocids, otariids, and odobenids).

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canidae.html

The fossil record of the Felidae extends to the Late Eocene.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Felidae.html

 

[Mojo]

Considering the nature of the statements hammy recently had in his signature, I think it's pretty obvious that he's just a troll.

I take it you mean this:

From Hammy's sig
If the Devil's greatest accomplishment was convincing the world HE does not exist, the Jews' greatest accomplishment was convincing the world The Protocols are a forgery ....

 

[Mojo]

Or, failing that, try posting something of merit to the discussion; your personal opinions of me don't add much.

fair enough: they don't add anything to the argument. I was just answering BSM's question.

Anyway, your personal opinions don't seem to have added much either.

 

[delphi_ote]

Also from there:
Who in the world denies "horses" mutated? Still, a horse is a horse ... of course of course....

Like "a dog is a dog" right? You got taken to the cleaner on this point already.

 

[Melendwyr]

I take it you mean this:

Oh yes.

Hammy's ideas about world history are about as intelligent as his ideas about evolution.

(Incidentally, do any creationists ever attempt to give a practical, working definition of 'kind', even if they can't offer a theoretical one? Surely they have some criteria for identifying a horse.)

 

[delphi_ote]

(Incidentally, do any creationists ever attempt to give a practical, working definition of 'kind', even if they can't offer a theoretical one? Surely they have some criteria for identifying a horse.)

They point to the verse about Adam naming the animals in Genesis. Seriously.