the Devil made dinosaur bones to deceive us

12/23/2005 5:44:00 PM

Quote :

"Those bones were implanted with fake dna"

12/23/2005 5:54:30 PM

damn, excoriator got pwnt hard

12/23/2005 5:56:50 PM

This thread somehow both simultaneously disproves intelligent design AND evolution.

12/23/2005 6:42:29 PM

you cant disprove ID ... thats why its not science

you CAN disprove evolution, but that of course hasnt happened.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 6:52 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 6:51:48 PM

it hasn't been proven either

but at least its scientific. i agree you can't say that about ID

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:08 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 7:07:37 PM

your definition of proven probably has a higher threshold then a scientist's definition



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:09 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 7:08:44 PM

just for fun, I'm going to have to question your definition of a species. If I am stating it wrong, let me know. anyway, you say that the definition of being of a different "species" is something that can't successfully mate with the other, though there must be some kind of actual relationship between the two animals. (Clearly a rabbit and a bird can't mate, but they aren't related enough to do so)

So, take two mules and get them to mate. nothing will happen. does this mean the two mules are of different species? nope.

of course, there's an important caveat. the mules are sterile they couldn't mate with anything. However, according to your definition of speciation, the mules are different species. Really, you have to specify more than what you have. That, and a mule is not an ancestor of a mule. But wait, what is really an "ancestor?" If a horse produces offspring with a donkey and another horse, the first horse has a mule and a horse descendent. Now, take that offspring horse and have it mate with the original donkey and you get another mule. Take the two resultant mules... is one an ancestor of the other? i don't know, but I'd be hard pressed to say that it 100% isn't an ancestor.

furthermore, doesn't "mating with an ancestor" decrease genetic diversity? If we take the literal "ancestor" definition in speciation, then evolution should decrease genetic diversity, no? Yeah, the mutations are increasing diversity, but are they doing so at a fast enough rate to counteract the decrease in diversity from "inbreeding?" Oh, so you say "well, it doesn't have to be a strict ancestor..." ok, then what does it have to be? kissing cousins? 15th cousins? if thats the case, then could you not take two mules with that distance? what then?

but, really, it gets even weirder. your definition says "ancestor." In the evolutionary time-frame, how do you "mate with your ancestor?" you couldn't freaking prove "speciation" even if you were around then! So, what we see is a definition which proves troublesome in a certain test case, and then in the "perfect case" that it is supposed to model, you can't even fucking test it! and you tell me that religion gives you a horse-pill to swalllow...

OK, enough with semantics on the definition. Lets look at the bread and butter. You've shown that speciation can occur. I'll be a dick, first, and say "so what, that doesn't prove shit. it just proves that it can occur, not that it did." But really, thats a cop-out, even if its a logically consistent one. No, I've got to ask an even better question. What does your experiment show? Does it show that speciation supports evolution? You want to say yes, don't you.

But you can't. Because your experiment doesn't the speciation that would have occurred with evolution. No, your speciation occurred because you caused it! What did you actually do in your experiment? You took versions of flies that would have never met in the real world and you bred them together. The environment, itself, didn't bring those flies together as evolution would proport. YOU DID! Evolution says that the genes which make an organism more likely to reproduce will be passed on as opposed to the genes that don't make an organism more likely to reproduce. How does such a gene get decided? Well, that's nature's choice, isn't it? Thats environment, right? Thats the foundation of evolution, right? So what genes effect the fruit flies in the experiment? Is it nature? Is something making it more likely to reproduce? Hell yes. The experimentor determines it! NOT the environment. Now, the experimentor did not take each individual fly and make them mate, but he had a huge impact on the mating process that simply wouldn't exist in nature. He has drastically limited the genetic variety, and he has drastically decreased to introduction of new genetic variety!

Now for the irony. This experiment has certainly proved that speciation can occur, there is no doubt. But, it hasn't shown that speciation can occur in nature. Rather, it has proved that speciation can occur in a controlled environment and that the controller can influence the result. Wait a minute. A "controller?" what does that sound like? A "guiding hand," influencing the process? Why, if the experimentor knew exactly what he was doing, he could actually dictate the outcome. He could, *gasp!*, design it! So, your experiment has done little more than prove that an intelligent designer could create everything via speciation. Even better, it doesn't actually prove that a natural process could bring about speciation.

Game.
Set.
Match.

12/23/2005 7:26:48 PM

Quote :

"your definition of proven probably has a higher threshold then a scientist's definition"

you know what's even better, Josh? your definition of "proof" can't even be applied to what you claim is a "fact" and yield that it is a fact. good work, man.

oh, almost forgot...

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

12/23/2005 7:28:33 PM

Quote :

"your definition of proven probably has a higher threshold then a scientist's definition"

Oh, I dunno - lets check with the scientific method

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

12/23/2005 7:32:26 PM

jesusth christ

12/23/2005 7:32:30 PM

So all that to say that even if we observe speciation you would claim that all it proves is that it COULD happen....well good for you.

Youre making yourself look like an idiot by posting a bunch of cars to make a point that as invalid. It is in fact true that cars dont have DNA, and arent alive.

Quote :

"Performance of experimental tests"

evolution has been tested

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:33 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 7:32:49 PM

better watch out or you'll have whats-his-name claiming that fire is alive

12/23/2005 7:34:01 PM

Quote :

"3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas : microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time -- changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms -- such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization -- can drive profound changes in populations over time. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not -- and does not -- find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence. It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor."

Quote :

"12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection -- for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits -- and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

12/23/2005 7:36:12 PM

Quote :

"So all that to say that even if we observe speciation you would claim that all it proves is that it COULD happen....well good for you."

actually, thats not at all what I said. I won't bore you with a picture of a scarecrow.

actually, what I said was those experiments proved that speciation could occur WITH THE AID OF SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. you know, kind of like intelligent design, no?

Quote :

"12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership. Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection -- for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits -- and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

So, 1) researches caused the speciation. ie, a variation of the Hawthorne effect. 2) the organisms refused to breed. they weren't incapable. they just refused.

oh, and the other one is so full of logical fallacies and shit that I have already discredited that I won't bother you with it again.

just think of all those corvettes, OK?

12/23/2005 7:41:52 PM

Quote :

"This blanket dismissal of evolution"

its not a blanket dismissal of evolution to acknowledge that macro evolution with speciation has not been proven.

i don't understand why you guys feel so threatened by this. evolution remains the best explanation even with this caveat

Quote :

"the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

that is because their mating rituals evolved

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:45 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 7:43:24 PM

I have no clue what youre talking about. The researchers said they couldnt mate and refused to. Thats a species.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:47 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 7:45:36 PM

Quote :

"The researchers said they couldnt mate, not that they refused to. "

seriously man, quit. read what you fucking posted! it says the flies REFUSED TO BREED, not that the flies couldn't breed.

of course, you still haven't addressed my VERY VALID POINT about the researcher, himself, causing the speciation...

12/23/2005 7:47:13 PM

Quote :

"the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment."

12/23/2005 7:47:20 PM

It says refuse and couldnt.

Quote :

"and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders"

sounds like a species.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:48 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 7:47:52 PM

Excoriator, that, right there, is what we call "proof by contradiction."
what have we proven? that Josh8315 is an idiot.

DID NOT, josh. not COULD NOT. there's a difference. I don't have sex with men, but that sure as hell doesn't mean that I can't have sex with men.

12/23/2005 7:48:31 PM

^from a person who thinks cars have DNA

12/23/2005 7:49:08 PM

Quote :

"and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders"

"did not" != "could not"

Josh, for all your earlier talk about genetics, its pretty surprising to see you putting so much stock in the mere behavior of these fruit flies. Wouldn't it be more interesting to evaluate if they were genetically capable of reproducing with each other?

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:50 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 7:49:44 PM

^^ from a person who LOVES the strawman.

because you made this stipulation that speciation requires DNA. I did not. even better, you haven't proven that speciation requires DNA.

12/23/2005 7:50:00 PM

You havent proven that corvettes have DNA.

12/23/2005 7:53:49 PM

i don't have to. because you haven't proved THAT IT FUCKING MATTERS IF THEY DO! thats why your argument against the corvettes is a strawman!

12/23/2005 7:54:38 PM

My argument is that speciation requires that you have DNA? I doubt anyone disagrees with me on that. If speciation does happen, it must involve at least having DNA. Ive yet to meet someone who disagrees with that.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 7:56 PM. Reason : =]

12/23/2005 7:56:38 PM

the corvette thing is stupid

12/23/2005 7:58:15 PM

thats great. I've yet to meet someone who doesn't think that potatoes taste like carrots. Therefor potatoes taste like carrots.

what you just committed there is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. you are appealing to "no one thinks I'm wrong," but that doesn't mean that you aren't wrong. If no one has heard your fucking point before, then the status of someone thinking you are wrong can not have actually been legitimately tested. Thus, you haven;t proven a fucking thing. Also, you NEVER stated that DNA was a pre-requisite for speciation. Thus, how can you have proven it is a prerequisite if you never fucking stated it?

12/23/2005 8:00:24 PM

Quote :

"My argument is that speciation requires that you have DNA? I doubt anyone disagrees with me on that. If speciation does happen, it must involve at least having DNA. Ive yet to meet someone who disagrees with that."

and yet, when it comes to determining speciation of the fruit flies you're all too happy to completely ignore genetic compatibility and focus only on behavior

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:01 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 8:01:28 PM

Hes trying to say that just becuase a bunch on finches look exactly alike exept for beak shapes trailored to hunt for specific food sources on a different islands, it doesnt mean they evolved from a common ancestor.

hes saying, GOD DID IT

god made all the finches look exactly the fuck the same exept for tiny differences. even those the islands are only a few thousand years old, god specifically waved a magic wand ever now and then to create a new species.

its just too crazy that perhaps small changes in how these beaks allow for survival created new species over long periods of time. it MUST be that god created all these species millions of years ago. even though they are only found on islands that existed for a few hundred thousand years.


GALÁPAGOS FINCHES




^no i agree they should have done DNA testing. it looks like it wasnt done.



[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:07 PM. Reason : - ]

12/23/2005 8:03:23 PM

those finches dont really prove evolution

12/23/2005 8:05:32 PM

no, they are evidence.

12/23/2005 8:05:47 PM

ok i'm sorry but the angelfire logo is just not really enough evidence for me


furthermore - you've resorted to posting links from angelfire to support your argument??? wtf?

12/23/2005 8:06:58 PM

Quote :

"Hes trying to say that just becuase a bunch on finches look exactly alike exept for beak shapes trailored to hunt for specific food sources on a different islands, it doesnt mean they evolved hes saying, GOD DID IT"

helloooooooooo strawman!

oh, and way to post an image from angelfire. I mean, everyone and their fucking mother knows that you can't hotlink images from that domain.

Quote :

"no i agree they should have done DNA testing. it looks like it wasnt done."

what the fuck would DNA testing have proved? which finch killed Nicole? or would it have proved that the finches were related. NO FUCKING KIDDING? imagine that. two birds which look a whole lot alike are related. damn, thats CRAZY TALK RIGHT THERE!

12/23/2005 8:07:02 PM

Just reading this page proves that this entire thread is idiotic.

You've spent post after post after post arguing about the words in one paragraph written by someone who did not conduct the research.

Not once has anyone referenced any of the research in question; instead you keep referring to quotes from the talk.origins FAQ--which is a wonderful reference, but is (a) not infallible, and (b) written to be understood by laypeople, not to be the basis of scientific debate.

12/23/2005 8:07:21 PM

ok, dave. how bout you enlighten us on the difference? I mean, "refused to breed" is really different to me than "were incapable of breeding," and I do consider myself a layperson...

12/23/2005 8:08:42 PM

Happy now?

Finches are how darwinism was born. Its hardly just a picture, if you understand the argument, which probably you dont.

So how about it, where did these finches come from if not evolution?

12/23/2005 8:08:55 PM

you are gonna make me do it again, josh...

Quote :

"Josh8315: Things that look alike are genetically related"

these are called "corvettes." they have similar body styles and the "older ones" are no longer being born or created. look how similar they are.

clearly, these pictures show a series of biological descendents. Clearly, each corvette "model" gave physical and biological birth to the next depicted "model." Clearly, the corvette is alive.
How else do you explain it? Some dudes in detroit built a bunch of them? naaaaaaah. that contradicts the obvious evidence we have right here! there's no way that we will find other evidence to suggest that something else happened. nope, that'll never happen. LONG LIVE THE LIVING BREATHING CORVETTE!

Its hardly just a picture, if you understand the argument, which probably you dont.

So how about it, where did these corvettes come from if not evolution?

12/23/2005 8:10:58 PM

yes, obviously, evolution occurred. however, macro evolution with speciation has not been proven in a controlled experiment and if it has, it certainly hasn't been independently duplicated

so until then, evolution is a darn good theory, but not one that reaches the same level of credibility as the theory of gravity or thermodynamics.

12/23/2005 8:11:17 PM

suspend ^^ him for pic spamming.


^even that wouldnt be enough for some crazy people.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:11 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 8:11:22 PM

yea, one pic would be fine... we don't need a whole line of 10 corvette pics

12/23/2005 8:12:17 PM

Quote :

"So how about it, where did these finches come from if not evolution?"

12/23/2005 8:13:37 PM

can we suspend you for stupidity spamming, josh? I mean, you've got me and Excoriator, who are on the opposite sides of the original fucking discussion, reaming you showing you how you are just plain wrong on the current issue. and you don't even address what we say anymore. you make contradictory statements and don't explain them. quite frankly, you are no better than salisburyboy at this point, and heaven knows we don't need another one of those on here

12/23/2005 8:13:59 PM

you could have just always had different types of finches
they dont have to come from evolution

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:15 PM. Reason : aaronburro you aren't any better than him]

12/23/2005 8:15:03 PM

Quote :

"So how about it, where did these different finches come from if not evolution?"

12/23/2005 8:15:43 PM

THATS CRAZY TALK, GUTH! DON'T YOU DENY THE ABSOLUTE TRUTHS OF THE INFALLIBLE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION!!!

12/23/2005 8:16:02 PM

redundant at this point.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:16 PM. Reason : s]

12/23/2005 8:16:16 PM

Im waiting for a better theory...arroonburro is just a troll.

Im not saying evolution could never be proved to be wrong. I just see no possible alternatives.

[Edited on December 23, 2005 at 8:17 PM. Reason : -]

12/23/2005 8:16:57 PM

i'm waiting for you to explain my corvette theory. joshnumbers is just a troll.

wait, wait wait... do I detect backpedaling?

12/23/2005 8:18:09 PM