What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Please tell me how in the world 2 shades of any color can be found when that color is not a shade.

Your failure to grasp the relationship between order and species is a mystery to me. Here's an idea for you. If you are going to try to argue against something, try understanding it first.

Listen Catmandou,
What is really a mystery to you is the fact that I am not disputing anything between order and species.
Where do you see a dispute?

Let's try this:
"You do realize that man is not a race don't you? Its a common name for all humanity and that 2 races of men have been found alive today?"
THAT IS CONTRADICTORY!
If man is not a race, how can you still refer to the found men as "races of men?"

Now if the statement was:
".....man is not a race by itself ...it is a common name for all humanity and 2 races of men have been found alive....." THAT would not be contradictory.

Now - back to the original:
"You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species by itself don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?" (emphasis mine) Is this statement correct?

WHERE IS THE DISPUTE?
THAT statement would not be contradictory and there would still be no dispute between order and species.

Now - you still want to hamstring me?

Listen! I was raised under the British system of education. It is superior to the American system by far. No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam. I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools. English, I understand, and a lot better that most people I encounter around the US.

And I "ain't fittin' to fail neither!"

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Because I believe that admitting when I'm wrong is as important as standing up for what I think is right.... it's part of it in fact.

I'm not trying to browbeat you... I'm trying to explain why I think you made a mistake. I think it's unusual the lengths you have gone to defend what is ultimately a trivial matter.

If your honor demands you be correct in this instance so badly, then there is little that can be done.

We can only learn what we can from this incident and move on.

wa:do

Yes! You and your cronies are browbeating me. You opinion should really matter.
I will admit when I am wrong. But not when I am not wrong.

I am not wrong about creation and my rejection of evolution, EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK SO. See how much your opinion matters?

There is a final judge and that isn't you.

Right is right.

I am not wrong now.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder who slept through their spelling class.
If one is going to use an illustration, it should be workable in order to make the point memorable.
The phylogenic tree is not workable.
It is evident that evolution stopped working on the insects because they remain the same from very ancient times. We have proof of that.
If a tree does not provide nourishment to every branch, then that branch dies off and is not replaced.
Yet - the insect branch of that tree remains alive and vibrant - in fact more successful than most other branches.

What is the explanation for that?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

It's false. New species of insects come into existence frequently.

 

[David M]

Listen! I was raised under the British system of education. It is superior to the American system by far. No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam. I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools. English, I understand, and a lot better that most people I encounter around the US.

So was I (and english was one of my better subjects at school).

Btw
"No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam"

Completely false. No one is allowed to study for a higher qualification in a subject unless they achieve an acceptable grade in the preceding qualification. The exams for these qualifications however only occur at age 16 (GCSE) and 18 (A Level). A student can completely fail one of their GCSE's and it does not prevent them from going to the next class to study for A levels in other subjects.

There are no final exams in any subject between age 5 and 15.

"I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools"

So have I, but physical size is not correlated with academic achievement. I was 6 foot tall by the time I left school, but I did well in all my exams (Barring French which I never liked and didnt see the point of).

So we can add the British educational system to the list of things that you don't know much about.

And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement.

"Coelacanth is not a species" does mean that coelacanth is not a single species. Because "a" is singular when used before a noun, it is synonymous with "one" in this usage. Do you use "I saw a bird" to mean you saw more than one bird? No, you use it to mean you saw one bird.

Definition of the word "a".
1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing:

It could be rewritten as "Coelacanth is the name for many species" or "Coelacanth is not one species" without changing its meaning in any way. The start of the second sentence reinforces the meaning of "a" to mean single or one by making it clear that the noun Coelacanth applies to an order.

Saying "Coelacanth is an order of fish and not a species" would also have an identical meaning. And this amply demonstrates your misunderstanding of the 2 sentences.

As there are more than one species within the order commonly named Coelacanth the noun Coelacanth can not in any way be "a species" as the name applies to more than 1 species.

It is just as accurate as saying
"Ford is not a model of car, however there are a number of models of car that are Fords".

Is there a "teaching basic english grammar" section of this forum.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Listen Catmandou,
What is really a mystery to you is the fact that I am not disputing anything between order and species.
Where do you see a dispute?

Let's try this:
"You do realize that man is not a race don't you? Its a common name for all humanity and that 2 races of men have been found alive today?"
THAT IS CONTRADICTORY!
If man is not a race, how can you still refer to the found men as "races of men?"

Now if the statement was:
".....man is not a race by itself ...it is a common name for all humanity and 2 races of men have been found alive....." THAT would not be contradictory.

Now - back to the original:
"You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species by itself don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?" (emphasis mine) Is this statement correct?

WHERE IS THE DISPUTE?
THAT statement would not be contradictory and there would still be no dispute between order and species.

Now - you still want to hamstring me?

Listen! I was raised under the British system of education. It is superior to the American system by far. No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam. I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools. English, I understand, and a lot better that most people I encounter around the US.

And I "ain't fittin' to fail neither!"

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Actually there was nothing wrong with the way it was before you decided to edit it here. If one understands what an order and what a species is then no clarification is needed.

"You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?"

What's highlighted in red above makes it all clear. But I'm not sure why such a debate over semantics has dragged on this long.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Is there a "teaching basic english grammar" section of this forum.

There bloody well should be.

If we're not teaching people basic grammar then we have to suffer people who for some reason take it upon themselves to redefine the meanings of words according to their own personal taste...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImmortalFlame
Look, there's an easy way to determine that you are both incredibly dense and lying through your teeth on this issue, Wilsoncole.

"Potatoes are not a flavour, there are many different flavours of potatoes." (Emphasis mine)
Now, is that contradiction?

Put that way,
YES!

Firstly, that's not what I wrote. Why did you omit the word "chips", exactly? That's not a change of emphasis, that's a change of subject.

Secondly, if you honestly believe that the above statement is a contradiction, then there is nothing more I can do for you. You are utterly deluded.

So why not be kind to yourself and cease and desist from participation in this discussion?

Because I don't want to. I enjoy "browbeating" you.

Are you chained here?

Nope.

Try this:
I wrote down this sentence, just like it is:

Originally Posted by David M
Quote:
"You do realise that Coelacanth is not a species don't you? Its a common name for an entire order of fish and that 2 species of Coelocanth have been found alive today?"

and took it to a friend of mine, a researcher at a University biology department without any comment, except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
She was able to spot the contradiction immediately.
Then I took it to another friend, head of a government health department, still without comment and the same question. The contradiction was spotted immediately.
I showed it to my wife - same result.

There are two possible explanations:

1) You're lying. This is the most likely option, since I doubt even you would be obsessive and childish enough to bother such people with the trivial matter of the wording of a sentence on an internet message board.

2) You're not lying, and are obsessive and childish enough to bother other people with the trivial matter of the wording of a sentence on an internet message board. And, everyone you appear to know is an idiot, or is just humouring you and your obsessive behaviour.

Again, point out the contradiction in the following phrase:

"Potato chips are not a flavour, there are many flavours of potato chips."

If you cannot point out the contradiction in the above sentence, then there is no contradiction in David M's sentence. Now, apologize for your error in misreading David M's sentence, and apologize for saying that you never made a claim.

I will continue to show it to others, without comment except to ask if they saw anything wrong with the sentence.
Why don't you try that?

Because I'm obviously not as childish and obsessive as you are. Also, I don't need the confirmation of others to know when there is and isn't a contradiction in a sentence - I have a thorough grasp of the english language and of the concepts discussed in the sentence, and I can say with absolute authority that there is no contradiction, and that you are desperately trying to cover up your own ignorance.

David M could, too - and all the others who tried to browbeat me into total capitulation.
Remember, no comment at all except the same question. You may be able to see what I see.

I don't think I could see what you see unless I was both drunk and five years old.

 

[wilsoncole]

It's false.

That's not an explanation.

New species of insects come into existence frequently.

That's what their parents were and that is how they stay. They're not changing into anything else.
Not proof of evolution.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's what their parents were and that is how they stay. They're not changing into anything else.
Not proof of evolution.

You obviously missed the "new species" part of the sentence. Here it is again, emphasis mine:

"New species of insects come into existence frequently."

 

[DeistPrimate]

You obviously missed the "new species" part of the sentence. Here it is again, emphasis mine:

"New species of insects come into existence frequently."

Now he expects whole Classes of Animalia to form before his very eyes.

Just another creationist strappin' rollerskates to those goal posts.

 

[Autodidact]

That's not an explanation.

That's what their parents were and that is how they stay. They're not changing into anything else.
Not proof of evolution.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

If I provide you with a cite to a published, peer-reviewed scientific article describing the emergence of a new species of insect, will you change your position?

 

[painted wolf]

Yes! You and your cronies are browbeating me. You opinion should really matter.

First, I don't have any cronies. If people agree with what I have to say, it is on the power of my arguments not on any cronyism. You will notice they do not agree with me on the existence of god.

Second, I have been nothing but polite to you and have apologized in cases where I may have been in error. But if you want me to browbeat you I can certainly oblige.

I will admit when I am wrong. But not when I am not wrong.

Oh yes, going so far as to call in your "government official" and "research biologist" friends to lend you some imagined credibility to cover up for yourself. (see, I can browbeat if you insist)

I am not wrong about creation and my rejection of evolution, EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK SO. See how much your opinion matters?

I don't really care about your opinion of my opinion.

The fact that you have attached to me the power to summon hoards of cronies to attack you already tells me plenty about your opinions of me. The fact that you refuse to address my questions and comments in a meaningful way tells me more.

There is a final judge and that isn't you.

Yes, and we'll see what they think of your invoking your "government allies" and insinuations about my "cronies".

People who invoke the "final judge" are IMHO weak spirited... you need spiritual threats to puff yourselves up. If you had real faith, such tactics would be anathema.

Right is right.

I am not wrong now.

(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<

Wilson

Your entire argument is thus: :ignore:

I have learned all I need to now, thank you for the lesson. Enjoy your time here on the forums, perhaps in time you will learn a few things yourself.

wa:do

 

[Gunfingers]

cronyism

New word of the day. Also, i'm totally your crony, Painted Wolf!

 

[outhouse]

People who invoke the "final judge" are IMHO weak spirited...

its like the poeple who get stood up and play the faith card when they run out of answers

 

[wilsoncole]

If I provide you with a cite to a published, peer-reviewed scientific article describing the emergence of a new species of insect, will you change your position?

How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new.

​

​

“. . .And God went on to say: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.” And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. . . .” (Genesis 1:20-21)​

This is where your insects come from.

DNA in animal life allows for a wide variety within each "KIND." You are witnessing such variety, but no new "kind."
KIND:
Definition:

"The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur."​

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.”​

Although the Bible creation record and the physical laws implanted in created things by Jehovah God allow for great diversity within the created “kinds,” there is no support for theories maintaining that new “kinds” have been formed since the creation period. The unchangeable rule that “kinds” cannot cross is a biologic principle that has never been successfully challenged. ​

Even with the aid of modern laboratory techniques and manipulation, no new “kinds” have been formed. ​

Besides, the crossing of created “kinds” would interfere with God’s purpose for a separation between family groups and would destroy the individuality of the various kinds of living creatures and things. Hence, because of the distinct discontinuity apparent between the created “kinds,” each basic group stands as an isolated unit apart from other “kinds.”​

From the earliest human record until now, the evidence is that dogs are still dogs, cats continue to be cats, and elephants have been and will always be elephants. ​

Sterility continues to be the delimiting factor as to what constitutes a “kind.” ​

This phenomenon makes possible, through the test of sterility, the determining of the boundaries of all the “kinds” in existence today. Through this natural test of fertilization it is possible to uncover the primary relationships within animal life and plant life. ​

For example, sterility presents an impassable gulf between man and the animals. Breeding experiments have demonstrated that appearance is no criterion. Man and the chimpanzee may look somewhat similar, have comparable types of muscles and bones; yet the complete inability of man to hybridize with the ape family proves that they are two separate creations and not of the same created “kind.”​

Although hybridization was once hoped to be the best means of bringing about a new “kind,” in every investigated case of hybridization the mates were always easily identified as being of the same “kind,” such as in the crossing of the horse and the donkey, both of which are members of the horse family. ​

Except in rare instances, the mule thus produced is sterile and unable to continue the variation in a natural way. Even Charles Darwin was forced by the facts to admit:
“The distinctness of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” (Origin of Species, 1902, Part 2, p. 54) ​

This still remains true.
​

​

​

​

​

​

(Insight vol 2 p. 152)​

 

[wilsoncole]

So was I (and english was one of my better subjects at school).

Btw
"No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam"

Completely false. No one is allowed to study for a higher qualification in a subject unless they achieve an acceptable grade in the preceding qualification. The exams for these qualifications however only occur at age 16 (GCSE) and 18 (A Level). A student can completely fail one of their GCSE's and it does not prevent them from going to the next class to study for A levels in other subjects.

There are no final exams in any subject between age 5 and 15.

"I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools"

So have I, but physical size is not correlated with academic achievement. I was 6 foot tall by the time I left school, but I did well in all my exams (Barring French which I never liked and didnt see the point of).

So we can add the British educational system to the list of things that you don't know much about.
And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement.

Is there a "teaching basic english grammar" section of this forum.

I think the correct sentence should read:
"And you are still wrong about there being a contradiction in my statement."
"Any" gives the impression that was more than one and that you had a choice when you really don't.
What were you saying about teaching me Basic English Grammar?

I notice you failed to answer this the first time, so let's try this again:
"You do realize that man is not a race don't you? Its a common name for all humanity and that 2 races of men have been found alive today?"
THAT IS CONTRADICTORY!
If man is not a race, how can you still refer to the found men as "races of men?"

Just answer that!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

So was I (and english was one of my better subjects at school).
Btw
"No person is promoted to the next higher class unless first he passes that final exam"
Completely false.

You are in no position to speak for the entire British Commonwealth. I lived through that.

No one is allowed to study for a higher qualification in a subject unless they achieve an acceptable grade in the preceding qualification. The exams for these qualifications however only occur at age 16 (GCSE) and 18 (A Level). A student can completely fail one of their GCSE's and it does not prevent them from going to the next class to study for A levels in other subjects.

That was not the case in the parochial schools where I went. I continued my schooling in the US.

There are no final exams in any subject between age 5 and 15.

In those schools there most certainly was! It always took place in the last few days of the school year ending in July. August was out only vacation month. Back to school we went come Sept. 1st.
"I have seen huge teenage boys in the lower grades in primary schools"

So have I, but physical size is not correlated with academic achievement. I was 6 foot tall by the time I left school, but I did well in all my exams (Barring French which I never liked and didnt see the point of).

Don't be silly! By the time you left school, you were NOT in the lower grades!
In my school, at age 8 you were in Standard 2. By age 9 you were in Standard 3. By age 10 you were expected to be in Standard 4.If you were 6 ft. tall and in Standard 2, 3, or 4, either you were suffering from an abnormality or you were a dunce or a "hulk" which is what these big boys were called.

So we can add the British educational system to the list of things that you don't know much about.

I know what I lived through.

And you are still wrong about there being any contradiction in my statement.
"Coelacanth is not a species" does mean that coelacanth is not a single species. Because "a" is singular when used before a noun, it is synonymous with "one" in this usage. Do you use "I saw a bird" to mean you saw more than one bird? No, you use it to mean you saw one bird.

I AGREE! You don't seem to understand that I am not arguing about the grammar nor about kinds, orders, or species.

Definition of the word "a".
1. Used before nouns and noun phrases that denote a single but unspecified person or thing:
It could be rewritten as "Coelacanth is the name for many species" or "Coelacanth is not one species" without changing its meaning in any way. The start of the second sentence reinforces the meaning of "a" to mean single or one by making it clear that the noun Coelacanth applies to an order.
Saying "Coelacanth is an order of fish and not a species" would also have an identical meaning. And this amply demonstrates your misunderstanding of the 2 sentences.
As there are more than one species within the order commonly named Coelacanth the noun Coelacanth can not in any way be "a species" as the name applies to more than 1 species.
It is just as accurate as saying
"Ford is not a model of car, however there are a number of models of car that are Fords".
Is there a "teaching basic english grammar" section of this forum.

You went to a lot of trouble for nothing, man!
No one is arguing about the grammar.

The quiet sounds of guilt, eh?

 

[LuisDantas]

How? Mutations?
Mutations can vary the old, but they can’t create the new.

Maybe you mean permutations (a mathematical concept). Those are indeed variations of existing entities that don't create anything new.

But in biology, it is not only possible to create something new by way of mutations, but it happens quite routinely. You can deny that, sure, but it is still true.

 

[David M]

I think the correct sentence should read:
"And you are still wrong about there being a contradiction in my statement."
"Any" gives the impression that was more than one and that you had a choice when you really don't.
What were you saying about teaching me Basic English Grammar?

Any is also grammatically correct.

I notice you failed to answer this the first time, so let's try this again:
"You do realize that man is not a race don't you? Its a common name for all humanity and that 2 races of men have been found alive today?"
THAT IS CONTRADICTORY!
If man is not a race, how can you still refer to the found men as "races of men?"

Just answer that!

No its not contradictory per se by your definotions of the terms man and race, its nonsense in terms of biology as man is a race and there is only 1 race if men, but not contradictory.

At this point, with multiple people having shown you that you are wrong and with many different examples I see no need to respond to any further to your irrelevant defences of your mistakes. Your character has been amply demonstrated to the posters here and that was, in part, my purpose in continuing.

Don't be silly! By the time you left school, you were NOT in the lower grades!
In my school, at age 8 you were in Standard 2. By age 9 you were in Standard 3. By age 10 you were expected to be in Standard 4.If you were 6 ft. tall and in Standard 2, 3, or 4, either you were suffering from an abnormality or you were a dunce or a "hulk" which is what these big boys were called.

Standard 2 etc have never been terms used in British schools, so what you describe just didn't happen under the British educational system.

Of course you have now admitted that it you were educated somewhere in the commonwealth and not britain. So which education system was it really?

 

[wilsoncole]

You obviously missed the "new species" part of the sentence. Here it is again, emphasis mine:

"New species of insects come into existence frequently."

Mr. Flame,
Thank you for your support.

Never thought I'd see YOU on my side of any discussion.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson