Darwin's Illusion

[Polymath257]

are you addressing this to me? If so can you repeat the question please?

Posts #8187 or #8206

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that.

Buy would a creator create useless genetic marckers (like broken genes) in the same spot, in different independient species?

If you find the same spelling mistake in two different editions of harry potter , you would assume that both editions where copied from a common source (and that the common source had that spelliing mistake)

If you claim that both editions where written independently, it becomes inexplicable why would they have the same spelling mistake in the same word and in the same sentence.

Well, given your analogy, if a population kept repeating a different spelling than what was acceptable by the established trend before and people began using that spelling which was slightly different than the original, I mean -- I don't understand your analogy anyway.
Once Adam & Eve were no longer allowed to live forever obviously their genetic structure must have changed.

 

[YoursTrue]

Read what I wrote. The morphology (shape) of individuals in a population does change over time. I assume that means 'morphing' with your terminology. No ape that lived, say, 5 million years ago was the same species as modern gorillas. But modern gorillas are the descendants of those apes that lived 5 million years ago. So that means there was 'morphing' going on. In other words, there was a change in morphology.

So, which of my claims do you disagree with?

1. No animal alive 5 million years ago was the same species as modern gorillas.

2. All modern gorillas are descended from apes that lived 5 million years ago.

And does that not proved there was a change in species from what lived 5 million years ago to modern gorillas? In *your* terminology, they 'morphed'.

Frankly speaking my dear -- I don't understand the question as it pertains to present structure. The word species as you understand it may be different from my recognition, science or no science. There are some things I do not understand and perhaps in time I will better understand.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you didn't answer my questions.

1. Do you agree that no animal that lived 20 million years ago was a gorilla?

2. Do you agree that all modern gorillas are descended from animals that lived 20 million years ago?

When you say that gorillas stay gorillas, you have to deny one or the other of thee two propositions. Which one?

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know so can't agree.
I do know that so far it seems incongruous in reason that apes (and I include humans in that for sake of discussion) have an "Unknown Commoin Ancestor." Maybe all the bones were dissolved? So far that seems a bunch of hooey to me. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos have stayed that way for how many supposed years each????

 

[Subduction Zone]

Semantics,

Adress his point

I did. And her point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants. And/or--
For instance: Polycephaly - Wikipedia.

You can believe that, but if it was true you would think that someone could find scientific evidence for it.

And modern fish did not evolve to become elephants, but a line of ancient ones did.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is exactly what I did, I searched for your alleged response and reported that I found nothing but vague and undeveloped hypothesis such as Mistakes Lies

You said you looked and found nothing. Now you say otherwise.

I asked you to develop a specific hypothesis in detail....... and you lied by saying that you already did it.

My answer was as comprehensive as possible. I gave a list of competing hypotheses, ordered them, and estimated their likelihood. I told you which was my preferred hypothesis and why. I told you which was least likely and why. No more detail or development is possible or necessary.

And I really don't think you've seen it, nor made a good faith effort to find it even after I told you how.

That is a very unfair accusation given that I cooperated and responded to your demands with detail

Disagree, and amazed that you think that you've been cooperative.

Many times, I have asked you a question saying that only you could answer it and you didn't, questions like, "Did you see the words? If so did you understand them? Why no acknowledgement of them?" and you are mute on the subject.

Look how long it took you to tell me you think you saw those posts. Why on earth would you not have reported that immediately? You've never mentioned seeing or using the search function I showed you and asked you about multiple times. This is what I mean about being uncommunicative and not forthcoming.

You didn't comment on Morton's demon and confirmation bias even when asked to.

You say that you're here to learn and to share opinions, but this is not how either is done. You withhold your thoughts except for your creationist apologetics, and I don't see where you've learned anything from anybody here. If I asked you what you learned from me, it would be that I am dishonest and unfair. Is there anything else you'd like to add to that list? You haven't learned what parsimony is. You don't know my counterargument to the OP. I have no evidence that you've learned what a confirmation bias is or what it does. You haven't learned how to do an RF search or to answer a post comprehensively. You say you have reading comprehension problem and then go on telling others what's missing from their posting as if you could judge that anyway. Where's the learning in any of that, Leroy?

 

[leroy]

Well, given your analogy, if a population kept repeating a different spelling than what was acceptable by the established trend before and people began using that spelling which was slightly different than the original, I mean -- I don't understand your analogy anyway.
Once Adam & Eve were no longer allowed to live forever obviously their genetic structure must have changed.

In this analogy a Book is analogous to a gene

And spelling mistakes analogoues to mutations.


Two books having the exact same spelling mistake I the same word and sentence would strongly indicate that both books came from a common source.


In the same way 2 mutations in the same gene in humans and chimps would strongly indicate a common ancestor.

 

[leroy]

You said you looked and found nothing. Now you say otherwise.

My answer was as comprehensive as possible. I gave a list of competing hypotheses, ordered them, and estimated their likelihood. I told you which was my preferred hypothesis and why. I told you which was least likely and why. No more detail or development is possible or necessary.

You where not asked to make a list of hypothesis.


You where asked to pick one specific and to explain it and develope it in detaill......then to explain why is that better than the resurection. (According to the criteria in the OP of that thread)


Does my request sounds like something from someone that whats to learn ? (Yes)

And I really don't think you've seen it, nor made a good faith effort to find it even after I told you how.

Disagree, and amazed that you think that you've been cooperative.

Many times, I have asked you a question saying that only you could answer it and you didn't, questions like, "Did you see the words? If so did you understand them? Why no acknowledgement of them?" and you are mute on the subject.

Look how long it took you to tell me you think you saw those posts. Why on earth would you not have reported that immediately? You've never mentioned seeing or using the search function I showed you and asked you about multiple times. This is what I mean about being uncommunicative and not forthcoming.

You didn't comment on Morton's demon and confirmation bias even when asked to.

You say that you're here to learn and to share opinions, but this is not how either is done. You withhold your thoughts except for your creationist apologetics, and I don't see where you've learned anything from anybody here. If I asked you what you learned from me, it would be that I am dishonest and unfair. Is there anything else you'd like to add to that list? You haven't learned what parsimony is. You don't know my counterargument to the OP. I have no evidence that you've learned what a confirmation bias is or what it does. You haven't learned how to do an RF search or to answer a post comprehensively. You say you have reading comprehension problem and then go on telling others what's missing from their posting as if you could judge that anyway. Where's the learning in any of that, Leroy?

Why on earth would you not have reported that immediately?

I did report that inmidiatly

I told you inmidiatly that your responses where not consistent with what I asked for.

 

[Astrophile]

Like I am saying, humans with different breathing capacities within a group are still humans.

These pictures are reconstructions of Homo habilis (left) and Homo erectus (right). They lived about 2 million years ago and belonged to the same genus (but not the same species) as ourselves. If they were dressed in modern clothes and had their hair styled, would you call them humans?

 

[Astrophile]

Actuall;y, I do not think that every organism on earth is a result of specific creation. It is possible that some groups developed genetically, within their group of sorts. In other words, fish did not eventually evolve to become elephants. And/or--
For instance: Polycephaly - Wikipedia.

Do you think that the ancestors of lampreys also evolved to become great white sharks, rays, pike, eels, mackerel, plaice, halibut, sunfish, oarfish, mudskippers and sturgeon?

 

[Polymath257]

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know so can't agree.

Well, one of the two has to be wrong. For the first, I suggest you try to find a gorilla fossil from 20 million years ago. You won't be able to.

For the second, are you claiming that tyhe animals 20 million years ago all died off and that modern animals appeared suddenly?

I do know that so far it seems incongruous in reason that apes (and I include humans in that for sake of discussion) have an "Unknown Commoin Ancestor." Maybe all the bones were dissolved? So far that seems a bunch of hooey to me. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos have stayed that way for how many supposed years each????

In all cases, less than 10 million years. There isn't a good fossil record for bonobos, but they are more closely related to chimps than the others, so appeared later.

How many primate fossils do you think we have from 10 million years ago? And why would you expect a common ancestor to be populous enough to leave remains we could verify as the common ancestor?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

These pictures are reconstructions of Homo habilis (left) and Homo erectus (right). They lived about 2 million years ago and belonged to the same genus (but not the same species) as ourselves. If they were dressed in modern clothes and had their hair styled, would you call them humans?

Thanks for that.

Not your point, but the meaning of word human has become a little vague. Feline refers to many species, and is derived from the genus name, Felis. By analogy, human might mean of the genus Homo. Or, it can refer to just Homo sapiens sapiens, to Homo sapiens including Neanderthalis but not other Homo sp.,

One might go further and the call the entire human branch after the bifurcation occurring following the last human-pan common ancestor, that is all hominins including Australopithecus sp. and other pre-Homo hominins.

You where not asked to make a list of hypothesis. You where asked to pick one specific and to explain it and develope it in detaill......then to explain why is that better than the resurection. (According to the criteria in the OP of that thread)

The OP is an argument. I rebutted it in as much detail as was needed for the rebuttal to be thorough and understood. I gave a list of candidate hypotheses to resurrection and I explained why they were all better than the supernaturalistic hypothesis. That's a complete treatment of the topic. And it's my typical answer - a list of candidate hypotheses as ordered as possible in terms of likelihood. It's how medical diagnosis is done. A differential diagnosis of all conditions consistent with the evidence (candidate hypotheses) ordered by likelihood and time sensitivity of diagnosis, that is, we look for common things and things that need to found quickly if present even if uncommon first.: "A differential diagnosis is a list of possible conditions that share the same symptoms that you described to your healthcare provider. This list is not your final diagnosis, but a theory as to what is potentially causing your symptoms."

Here's one such "differential diagnosis" on the relationship of mind to matter:

"That's the position of materialism regarding the relationship of mind and matter. It's one of four logically possible relationships between A and B if A (mind) and B (matter) both exist: A derives from B (materialism), B derives from A (idealism), they both derive from C (neutral monism), and they are unrelated (Cartesian dualism)."

Here's one on why the universe exists:

"Consider your list of candidate hypotheses for the history of the universe, which had only one element: God. Mine looked like the following. How did you get from mine to yours? You either never considered several of these logical possibilities, or else you dropped them for no reason valid reason:

The universe:

I. Had no prior cause
1. Always existed
2. Arose uncaused from nothing

II. Had a source which also either always existed or arose from nothing uncaused
1. Unconscious substance (multiverse)
2. Conscious (deity)"

I just ran into one of the posts you say doesn't exist while doing the searches that found the two above. I've edited it to remove much of my answer for the same reasons I did so last time. If you want these answers, you need to find them yourself or get somebody to help you as you should have when the idea was first proposed:

"Will you ever stop it with the misidentification and turn to other naturalistic explanations such as my preferred one - [content deleted]. That one is a bout [content deleted]% likely to be correct. Explanations that [content deleted] are essentially all of the other [content deleted]%, and supernaturalism is 0+%. Please address that position."

As usual, you didn't address it when asked to, and now you can't find it.

I also found this, also written to you, which addresses one of the subcategories of answers I gave you - ones that include witnesses reporting seeing a resurrection:

"What did they see to convince them of resurrection? Candidate answers include, the [content deleted], the [content deleted], a [content deleted]"

I told you inmidiatly that your responses where not consistent with what I asked for.

You told me you looked and couldn't find the posts. How many times have I written those words like "you say the posts don't exist" since? A dozen? All of a sudden, you COULD find the posts, but they didn't meet your expectations. I don't believe you, Leroy, but it doesn't matter what you actually did at this point. You didn't do what was asked of you in a timely manner, and even now, you still have never referred to the RF search function or explained why you didn't do that.

When you start paying attention to the words of others, you might get what you want from them more often.

Why are you persisting with this? I have no intention of relenting, and as I told you, even if you find those posts and apologize, I've lost interest in discussing them with you. It's actually more than that. I have a barrier to discussing them with you now. I would feel that I was abandoning my principles and was enabling you in this behavior. I would be embarrassed to do either, and it would feel immoral to me as well. If you understood that, you might realize that you will never get what you wan from me.

 

[Polymath257]

Frankly speaking my dear -- I don't understand the question as it pertains to present structure. The word species as you understand it may be different from my recognition, science or no science. There are some things I do not understand and perhaps in time I will better understand.

Well, I might suggest that until you *do* understand, you might want to refrain from declaring to be unreasonable what is said by people who have been studying this material all of their lives.

The first basic question of evolution is whether species are static (or, as you say, gorillas only produce gorillas, etc). The questions I asked go directly to that issue. Furthermore, it is precisely the type of data relevant to this question that lead to *first* people to study this to understand that species are NOT static.

After that, we can discuss mechanisms of change and whether there are common ancestors. But let's simply focus on one issue for now, ok?

 

[ppp]

are you addressing this to me? If so can you repeat the question please?

Yes.

 

[John53]

You haven't heard about particular human groups with very long legs? As opposed to groups with short-er legs?

No, do tell.

But let me have 1 guess 1st. They evolved longer legs so it's easier to walk door to door harassing people with their religious beliefs?

 

[John53]

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know so can't agree.
I do know that so far it seems incongruous in reason that apes (and I include humans in that for sake of discussion) have an "Unknown Commoin Ancestor." Maybe all the bones were dissolved? So far that seems a bunch of hooey to me. Gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos have stayed that way for how many supposed years each????

You don't know but you are 100% sure that science is wrong about it?

 

[YoursTrue]

In this analogy a Book is analogous to a gene

And spelling mistakes analogoues to mutations.


Two books having the exact same spelling mistake I the same word and sentence would strongly indicate that both books came from a common source.


In the same way 2 mutations in the same gene in humans and chimps would strongly indicate a common ancestor.

Sorry, my reaction is whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

You don't know but you are 100% sure that science is wrong about it?

I am pretty certain science is not wrong about everything. But then I'd have to look at every assertion science makes and I don't have the time. (Neither do scientists. They usually stick to one aspect.)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, do tell.

But let me have 1 guess 1st. They evolved longer legs so it's easier to walk door to door harassing people with their religious beliefs?

You need to do a little more research...have a good one.