Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

“So I don’t look so ridiculous next time.”
First of all, why was this unkind remark necessary and relevant in any way? No worries, I won’t stoop that low and claim the same regarding you.

Here is the basis for your argument: anyone can take any trace fossil and find that it shares some of the traits or “appears” to look like some other group and then call it “transitional.” But the differing traits, current unknowns, new data are ignored.

However, I’m glad that you have personally solved all of the following unknowns, speculations, hypotheses and have claimed them as fact that lobopods are the transitional between annelids and arthropods based upon outdated sources.

Most arguments, including yours, are reliant upon vertebrae bones but vertebrae bone fossils lack the soft tissue containing information to evolve exoskeletons.

Any “honest expert” will say that the evolution of lobopods, as of other very old groups with few or no fossils, is a speculative subject, on which no consensus has yet been reached. Classification debates have been going on for decades. There have been some interesting potential finds in China that may shed some more light on the unknown, but the credibility of Chinese fossils isn’t the greatest to determine if these are even legitimate yet.

The arthropod head problem also poses problems.

Going forward,
The long held view that annelids and arthropods are closely related (Articulata hypothesis) has been challenged recently by phylogenetic analyses using molecular data. The outcome of these studies is a clade of moulting animals (Ecdysozoa) comprising arthropods and some taxa of the nemathelminth worms. Monophyly of the Ecdysozoa has not yet been shown convincingly on morphological evidence, but is strongly supported by molecular data. The Ecdysozoa hypothesis is that anthropoids came from an unsegmented wormlike ancestor. Then the major concern with Ecdysozoa hypothesis is this would involve convergence.

According to “some” authorities, the lobopods “may” have been the evolutionary source of appendages in annelids and arthropods. We both know how this works though.... “may’s” are promoted as auto-facts.

The wise withhold judgement, and remain indecisive until more is known.

However, this begins and ends with lobopods. I care to no longer entertain those who routinely make snide, irrelevant and unnecessary comments.

I care to no longer entertain those who plagiarize. You have cut and pasted, without attribution or credit. That is beneath contempt. Much of the technical material you posted above was stolen from:

The Articulata hypothesis – or what is a segment?
By GerhardScholtza

Unless you are Gerhard Scholtza you should ashamed.

 

[Sapiens]

First, I didn’t falsely accuse you of doing anything or copying without citation. You noted you’d provide references if needed. I stated that you copied and pasted from Talk Origins. That was the extent. Nothing about false anything or copying without citation. Please don’t speak for me or create something never said.

Here’s what you refer to by specific data?
“The oldest lobopod known from early Cambrian strata is the Xenusion, which shows commonalities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to livingonychophorans and tardigrads (Dzik 1989). Other lobopods show features of primitive arthropods (Dzik 1993; Chen 1994). Thediscovery of the lobopod Opabinia with itslobopod limbs provides evidence of alobopod to arthropod transition (Budd 1996), which was further bolstered by the discovery of a lobopod with gills (Budd 1993).”
Yeah, that all sounds like highly specific data.
As already said, your basing your information off of old, outdated sources and by appearance/similarities in traits.

Nothing vague and empty about those. I’m sorry, the more recent molecular data doesn’t support your claims.

Now take care.

You even steal from your cobelievers: intelligent design vs creationism

 

[Profound Realization]

Again, that's an interesting set of assertions. Any actual substance to back them up?


Now if only you could show where I've made those claims you might have a point. Otherwise it's just another example of the sort of things creationists are forced to stoop to.


Again, nothing more than a series of vague assertions on your part, rather than any sort of substantive response to the specific data I posted.

To this point all you've done in response to the data is cite a habitually dishonest creationist lawyer, misuse basic terminology, and throw around a handful of empty, vague assertions.

If that's all you can muster, I'll allow that to speak for itself.


First, I'll note your hypocrisy. After falsely accusing me of copying without credit from Talk Origins, you immediately turn and do it yourself, copying without citation from THIS PAPER.

Now, please explain in your own words how you think that's a rebuttal to what I posted.

My post was updated citing the 1 source I used.

Posting that you or I will provide sources if needed/wanted/desired doesn’t cut it. I’ve corrected my honest mistake, if you’d be willing to correct your copy and pastes from wherever you copied and pasted the majority of your information, since you noted at the bottom that references were available upon request. I think that your intentions were honest as well in that regard.

I apologize if you felt that I accused you of anything, I made no accusations other than the copy and paste.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Scientists themselves tell us that there are no "facts" in evolutionary science, so that is an assumption on your part.

Um, no. There are facts in science, but the theories proposed to explain those facts are never "proven".

For example: it is a FACT that populations of organisms change over time. The THEORY that explains how this happens is called evolutionary theory.

Just because they give you great graphics and important looking diagrams, doesn't mean that they have substantiated evidence.....it just means that their explanation sounds convincing to you.

The reason they sound convincing is because they have facts and are able to explain those facts clearly and use the framework provided by those explanations to make successful predictions. It's not just "fancy graphics and diagrams" - and your assertion here is baseless. Please don't insult my intelligence.

It is not at all convincing to me for many reasons. How do evolutionists demand evidence for a Creator and then accept evolution on an equal amount of evidence? This is about beliefs.

We only demand evidence of creator when a creator is posited as a viable scientific alternative to established scientific theories. Of course, some of us take this further, but that is unrelated to the science. If you believe something, there is usually a reason WHY you believe it. The question is, WHAT is that reason and is it SUFFICIENT to justify the belief? If you feel it is personally convincing to you, fine, but don't present personal reasons and expect other people to find them convincing. If it's just "about belief" then you shouldn't act dismissive and patronizing when people reject your belief in favour of their own. They are just finding your personal belief unconvincing to themselves. And yet you act like this should be "obvious" to us. You can't have it both ways - claiming that God is "obvious" while simultaneously saying it is a matter of belief and not evidence. Either you base your belief in solid evidence, or we have no reason to accept your belief as anything than a personal belief.

My logic is in line with what "empirical" evidence is.....something demonstrated by the senses.

Then you don't understand what empirical means.

What I see with my own eyes and discern through my other senses, convinces me that those rocks on the beach didn't get there by undirected chance. The word "HELP" would mean nothing if I could not understand written language and it would be useless if others didn't understand it either...they would make no attempt to rescue me. Even "S O S" would not create itself on a sandy beach with rocks spelling it out by random chance. That is the universal distress signal understood in all languages.

But the only reason you understand letters and their significance is because you have been raised in an environment that uses those letters, and you are currently unaware of any likely, natural cause for those specific shapes to arise. To say "I recognize them as designed because I see them and know they are designed" makes no sense, because if you had never encountered letters before and had no knowledge of their origin you could not possibly assume they were designed at first glance. That's the point. It's meaningless to assert design without a frame of reference, and since we only know of a singular Universe and have no directly observed its design process, we cannot say that its complexity or shape is necessarily indicative of design.

The fact that you accept the concept in the first place opens you up to accept whatever they suggest "might be" or "could be" what happened, regardless of whether the evidence can be substantiated or not.

The question is WHY do I accept the concept? It's because it is favoured by the weight of evidence and facts.

That places evolution in the definition of a belief....just like creation.

Sure, in the broad sense that a belief is "a position held to be true", but then so is the sun rising, air being breathable and grass being green. The question is not WHAT we believe but WHY we believe it, and I accept evolution because the facts support it - not because of some presumption or bias. In this sense, it is NOT like creation, because you have no actual facts supporting the assertion of creation. As you freely admitted, you just believe regardless of evidence.

Neither of us can prove scientifically that our accepted belief is true. Stale mate.

Not quite. See, science doesn't work based on "proof", it works on evidence, analysis and prediction. My accepted belief has produced vaccines, advanced agriculture, can be used to predict the location and shape of fossils left over from millions of years ago, and the methodology used to arrive at its conclusions put a rover on Mars, put man on moon, doubled average life expectancy and has been the single greatest contributor to human progress over the last hundred years. There is no stale mate. In the battle of science vs. faith, science wins every time.

The evidence that science presents is an interpretation of what scientists want that evidence to say.

Baseless assumption.

The fossils have no voice without scientists putting words in their mouths.

And you think they have no idea what they are talking about? Perhaps you think you know better?

There is no real evidence beyond what science wants to believe.

Scientists don't accept what they "want" to believe. In the early days of evolutionary theory, nobody accepted it and the idea was largely derided in both public and scientific circles. It took time and evidence before people started to change their minds - not because of some shady, atheistic conspiracy, but because of facts and reasoned argument. The scientific community (a religiously very varied group) are now almost entirely unanimous that evolution explains common descent.

Their evidence is interpreted to fit their beliefs....that is what I see.

Then you aren't looking. Over 50% of scientists are theists.

Take away the jargon and the inference and the suggestions and what do you have left...? precious little as far as I can see.

Like I said, you're not looking.

 

[Quintessence]

*** THREAD LOCKED ***​

Because the staff team is sick and tired of seeing reports from this thread.