PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     YEC: "Evolution NOT in crisis"
       must be he's not a TROO YEC

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Tood Wood, PhD., YEC, wrote the following on his blog the other day:

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."


I wonder what YECs will claim now?

He is one of them, AND he has an actual bona fide doctorate.  

Will Lester be able to rebut him?

Wood went  on:

"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure...."

A good read.   Like many YEC blogs, such as behe's, and ENV, he doesn't allow comments...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:45 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To continue the quote:

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:29 PM on October 7, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Now that is interesting.  Finally, an honest creationist.  However, I have to wonder how in the world he reconciles evolution with his stated faith in a biblical creation?  I wonder if it causes him a lot of distress - holding two diametrically opposing views.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:55 PM on October 7, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very similar to statements from Kurt Wise.

Honest creationist Kurt Wise on transitional fossils


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:00 PM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:55 PM on October 7, 2009 :
Now that is interesting.  Finally, an honest creationist.  However, I have to wonder how in the world he reconciles evolution with his stated faith in a biblical creation?  I wonder if it causes him a lot of distress - holding two diametrically opposing views.


He, like Wise, states that he accepts YECism because of his Faith.

I cannot comprehend the horrendous mental anguish such folk must suffer.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:17 PM on October 7, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He, like Wise, states that he accepts YECism because of his Faith.

I cannot comprehend the horrendous mental anguish such folk must suffer.


Well Derwood, for probably the first time I'm going to have to agree with you that there might be some horrendous mental anguish here. On the other hand, I'm not sure that 'stupid' and 'illogical' wouldn't better explain that ambivalent position.

There is no way to see young earth and evolution in the same picture and if you see unmistakable evidence for evolution then give up YEC or you're just fooling yourself. Of course one has to remember that some people just like sitting on the fence to maintain popularity with people on both sides of that fence, pretty pointless and dishonest  (or stupid) position in my opinion.

Apoapsis
I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure.People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution.


Tood Wood Phd YEC sounds like a double agent to me, pretending one thing and actually believing the opposite covertly and looking like a fool in his mutterings. He's not a YEC, trust me, he doesn't know what he's saying, must have smoked his shoes. Perhaps he will be diagnosed bipolar soon.

There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it.


No Tood Wood, whoever you are, there isn't but I really wish you would be more specific about this evidence.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:10 AM on October 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:10 AM on October 8, 2009 :
He, like Wise, states that he accepts YECism because of his Faith.

I cannot comprehend the horrendous mental anguish such folk must suffer.


Well Derwood, for probably the first time I'm going to have to agree with you that there might be some horrendous mental anguish here. On the other hand, I'm not sure that 'stupid' and 'illogical' wouldn't better explain that ambivalent position.

There is no way to see young earth and evolution in the same picture and if you see unmistakable evidence for evolution then give up YEC or you're just fooling yourself. Of course one has to remember that some people just like sitting on the fence to maintain popularity with people on both sides of that fence, pretty pointless and dishonest  (or stupid) position in my opinion.



Todd Wood is a creation scientist.  He has a legitimate PhD (biochemistry, U of Virginia) and is the director of Bryan College's Baraminology Study Group.

You are calling his position dishonest and stupid, despite the fact that he says that he is a YEC because of his Faith.

Well, I guess rejecting evidence on account of one's preferred allegiance to a book of ancient fairy tales is  pretty stupid...

But anyway -


What do you know that he doesn't?

And do you still think that Darwin knew of Popper's work?

What is your PhD (giggle) in again?

(Edited by derwood 10/8/2009 at 1:38 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:30 PM on October 8, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Todd Wood is a creation scientist.  He has a legitimate PhD (biochemistry, U of Virginia) and is the director of Bryan College's Baraminology Study Group.


Baraminology - I finally looked up this definition because you have mentioned it on several occassions, and I wasn't sure what exactly it meant.

From Wikipedia:

Baraminology is a system used in creation science for classifying life into groups having no common descent, called "baramins". Its methodology is based on a literal creationist interpretation of "kinds" in Genesis, especially a distinction between humans and other animals. Other criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Baraminology developed as a subfield of creation science in the 1990s among a group of creationists that included Walter ReMine and Kurt Wise. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is not related to science,  and biological facts show that all life has common ancestry. The taxonomic system widely applied in biology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history and emphasizes objective, quantitative analysis.


So baraminology an attempt to come up with an alternative to cladistics with it's basis in Biblical mythology?  That attempt is doomed to failure!  That would be like trying to argue a flat earth and firmament against what we know of cosmology today.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:17 PM on October 8, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Looks like Lester's famous:

The furor continues, as silly as it is. My blog hits yesterday shot up to heights I've not seen since Pharyngula made fun of me back in March. I've begun to notice a strange undercurrent of folks proposing that I'm not really a young earth creationist. One especially amusing person suggested that I was stupid, possibly bipolar, or just a liar (scroll down here to Lester10's post). So much for that whole "love your enemies" thing.

I'M A CREATIONIST!


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:55 PM on October 8, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:55 PM on October 8, 2009 :
Looks like Lester's famous:

The furor continues, as silly as it is. My blog hits yesterday shot up to heights I've not seen since Pharyngula made fun of me back in March. I've begun to notice a strange undercurrent of folks proposing that I'm not really a young earth creationist. One especially amusing person suggested that I was stupid, possibly bipolar, or just a liar (scroll down here to Lester10's post). So much for that whole "love your enemies" thing.

I'M A CREATIONIST!



I'll bet 'Lester10' did not offer any actual explanations for his assertions, did he?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:45 AM on October 9, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll bet 'Lester10' did not offer any actual explanations for his assertions, did he?


If the earth is young, there's no time or room for evolution, is there?

From what was said here it appeared to me that this person can't know what he is saying, but having read that blog, it sounds as if he knows exactly what a YEC is. Somehow he fits universal common ancestry into the equation. I don't know how he intends to co-ordinate this but I personally can't reconcile or even think of how to reconcile the two positions. Believing in the concept of a common creator is not the same as saying that there is a universal common ancestor. That requires gradual evolution which requires a minimum of billions of years.

As for Ted Wood's comment of 'so much for loving your enemies' - I can love stupid, bipolar people and even schizophrenic people too. NOt to worry, we will find a nice home with a comfie bed for him when his ambivalence splits him apart.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:12 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

If the earth is young, there's no time or room for evolution, is there?


And your evidence that shows the earth is young?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:20 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:12 AM on October 10, 2009 :
I'll bet 'Lester10' did not offer any actual explanations for his assertions, did he?


If the earth is young, there's no time or room for evolution, is there?


So, are you admitting that it WAS you insulting and denigrating a PhD-holding YEC because he is honest enough to admit that there IS evidence for evolution and that evolution is science?

As Orion asked - what IS THE EVIDENCE that the earth is young?

Please keep in mind that producing lists of supposed problems for radiometric dating is in fact NOT evidence for a young earth, and evidence that the earht is millions not billions of years old is also not evidence that the earth is thousands of years old.



From what was said here it appeared to me that this person can't know what he is saying, but having read that blog, it sounds as if he knows exactly what a YEC is. Somehow he fits universal common ancestry into the equation.

The you didn't read the blog at all.

Todd IS a YEC, he does NOT accept evolution at all, BECAUSE of his Faith.  He does, however, recognize that SCIENTIFICALLY, evolution IS a viable scientific theory and that there really IS evidence in its support.

But thanks for giving us yet more evidence that you tend to argue from a position of ignorance.





As for Ted Wood's


His name is TODD.

Do you read ANYTHING that you comment on BEFORE you spew?


comment of 'so much for loving your enemies' - I can love stupid, bipolar people and even schizophrenic people too. NOt to worry, we will find a nice home with a comfie bed for him when his ambivalence splits him apart.


Awww.... How condescending, arrogant, elitist, and pathetic of you - that Christian love thing is just amazing.


Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It is amazing to me the strength that religionists see in philosophy.


It's amazing to me that so-called scientists are so lost in philosophy without recognizing it and seem unable to distinguish between it and actual science.

Yeah, us poor "so-called" scientists.  I mean obviously we are not actual scientists - like the creation scientists - because we do not immerse ourselves in syllogisms and pseudologic.

Whenone complements the fossil data with the genetic data, the 'story' is rather sound from a scientific perspective.


'Fraid not. As you very well know, you cannot compare the genomes of extinct creatures to living creatures so there is nothing to check but the whale.

'Fraid you just keep exposing how little you actually know about the study of evolution and the use of genetic data generally.

We do not need DNA from extinct creatures to infer phylogeny.

Thus the genetic story is not complementing the fossil data because it doesn't exist. The entire fairytale is morphology based and there is no corroborating evidence.

I am always amazed at how confident those are who understand the least.  This is actually
documented , by the way.

Of note, I saw that you never responded to my offer to send you some DNA sequences and a free alignment prgram to see if your amazing lack of bias produced analysis outcomes that differed friom my biased notions.  Wonder why....


as I had predicted you would reject/dismiss any evidence supportive fo evolution.


I have never rejected actual scientific evidence but the rubbish based on philisophical presumption is rejected with good reason.

Well, isn't that special - you just label everything as being based on philosophical presumption in order to dismiss it.  How intellectual!

So, why not use your special YEC-philosophy to interpret this:

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.




Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


or this:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.




Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.
Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


How about you stop misrepresenting what you reply to?  How about you stop butchering what you reply to in order to try to turn the tables (which you are not very good at)?  How about you leave in the context:


Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?





Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.



Think you can do that?

When you dismiss the evidence you are presented with, it is easy to claim that it doesn't exist.


I only dismiss claims for which there is no actual evidence -so drop the supercilious tone and hear what I am saying.

This from the person who wrote about "so-called scientists" and the like.. how rich..
I DO hear what you are saying - you say that if an evolutinist presents somethign as evidence you automatically dismiss it because you feel the evidence was generated/interpreted using a metaphysical worldview that you disdain.
No?

Why was there so much speculation surrounding Rodhocetus? Because it is in the nature of fossils and the philisophical beliefs surrounding them that people who believe whales must have evolved from a mammal will find missing links somewhere even in animals that may be unsuitable for the job. It is unfortunate that one man's speculation got rolled out as proof. I doubt he meant it to go that far. This happens rather often in the world of evolutionary speculation. It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be believable much like their stories they knit about how one creature became another.


I think you are conflating a museum display with 'proof.'

The speculations were made premised on what was known at the time. NEW INFORMATION showed that the earlier speculations were incorrect.  NEW INFORMATIOn in the form of additional fossil evidence.

Imagine that.

Being 'believable' is not what evidence-based speculation is about in science. Being consistent with the evidence that is available is.  There is a clear and obvious difference.

I think you meant 'beyond observation there is inference'


No, I meant imagination.

Then you are not talking about science, you are talking about your metaphysic tainted understanding of what you need science to be.
We cannot 'observe' atoms, yet I doubt that you would declare our depictions of atoms to be imagination.


Say a murder takes place. We have a body with a knife wound.  We have a suspect whose knife fits the damage done on the body, the victims blood is on the knife and the suspect's clothing.  The suspect left shoe prints and finger prints at the crime scene.  But there were no witnesses.

According to your anti-evolution logic, the suspect must be innocent.


You wish you had so much to infer from. You should recognize the difference between inference and imagination but I see that amongst evolutionists it is quite common to conflate the two and still call it 'science'.


I see some insults and such, but no real reply.


In your case you have this sort of philisophical inference:
One very old tooth which has the shape 'strongly suggestive' of a imagined link between apes and humans. No blood, no murder weapon, no clothing, no other evidence whatsoever -just the one tooth.So strong is the evidence that a top scientific journal writes an article accompanied by an artist's depiction of the half-human half-ape as well as his wife and family, his home and surroundings showing how this all would probably have looked. Later the tooth is discovered to be identical to that of a peccary (an extinct pig) and the story is retracted -usually this happens very quietly in some obscure corner of the journal while the main story is splashed all over the front cover. It has it's expected effect -more people see the image and believe. Seldom does anyone see the retraction.


So, you have to resort to misrepresenting the claims made by one overzealous amateur anthropologist from close to 100 years ago to tar an entire field of science?  
You write that as if you think that is ALL we have for anything.

You are either engaging in this unprecedenmted hyperbole for rhetorical purposes or you really are that uninformed.

Why do you think Rodhocetus is still on display with fluke and flippers?

Perhaps because the museum does not thave the money to change the display?  I've not seen it, myself, so I cannot guarantee that your depiction of it is accurate.  You've seen it, have you?

Because it is seen by the 'believers' to be representative of the truth they believe in even if they don't quite have the correct bones yet.

Well, that must be it.

Perhaps if you had actually addressed the question about the bones I asked above (instead fo lopping off the context and spinning it) you may see that how they were depicted is not that important.


In this case, as in so many, the suspect was innocent despite being framed with all sorts of subsidiary imaginative pictorial additions.

Typical insulting rhetorical insinuations.  Best you YECs have, I guess.

So, by your definition, Physics (radiometric dating), Astronomy (billions of years old universe), geology (no evidence of 'the flood', billions of years old earth), etc. must also not be 'true science.'


It isn't. It is the incorrect interpretation of the evidence based on philisophical imaginings and the exclusion of anything but naturalism in the definition of the new 'science'.


Ah, so NOTHING is 'true' science in your world.

What ID 'true science', I have to wonder -Seeing the blessed Virgin in a water stain on the side of a building?


Don't worry there's lots of good science out there but all of it is based on observation and experimentation unlike evolution which is based on wishful thinking.


More insulting unsupported rhetoric.


I suggest registering at the forum 'Theologyweb' and searching for the posts by "socrates".  


You might be able to find one example out there but in general YEC's are anything but vicious. I've heard some real bombastic, supercilious evos out there though.

I've seen the opposite.  Must be my metaphysical position.

How do you know that genetic relatedness is due to a common ancestor?
Because the means by which such conclusions are drawn have been tested on knowns.


What 'knowns' are you suggesting here? You need to look again and see if your 'knowns story isn't based on the same old assumptions. I have no doubt they are.


Imagine that - a non-scientist YEC (let me guess - you maybe have a BS in something non-science-related, yes?) denigrating those in a field he knows demonstrably very little about.  that must be the 'Christian' way.

I've recently posted them, but here you go again:

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

and


Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.


I can't wait to hear your metaphysical stories about how this is all 'assumptions' and the like...


That is merely an ad hoc rationalization.  You can make the same argument for magical bunnies.


No, that is your ad hoc rationalization for why you should discount what I'm saying with no proper justification.


The justification is that the exact same claims can be just as logically made for any mythological construct.  You wrote:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a common, very intelligent designer that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

A person could, with the same justification and rationale, write:

"How do you know that it hasn’t got everything to do with a flying spaghetti monster that programmed the different genotypes to produce different types of creatures. "

So, were all 1000+ species of bats on the Ark as individual kinds?


I don't have a clue how many original bats were on the ark -it depends entirely on whether they can procreate or not and how much genetic variability the original bats had programmed into them by their creator.

You presuppose that they HAD such "genetic variability... programmed into them by their creator" - you conclude what you seek to support.
Most mutations are neutral.
No, they aren’t.
It depends on where they occur.


I tell you what -why don't you show me all your morphological mutations that have occurred leading to something other than distortion of what that gene used to do and I'll direct you to some demonstrably harmful morphological effects of mutation. After all mutations leading to altered morphology is what we need for the raw material of evolution.


And once again the YEC goal posts twist and shift.

You declared that mutations are not neutral, now you are demanding that show you a mutation that beneficially alters morphology.

How about we stick to one demand at a time?  Perhaps you have heard that Steven Pinker had his genome sequenced and it was compared to Craig Venter's, and you know what was discovered?  Pinker and Venter's DNA differed by many millions of mutations.  According to your folk YEC science, one or both of them should be hideopusly disfigured mutatnts, if alive at all.  Perhaps the problem lies with your understanding of genetics?

Oh, and you ignroed this twice:




[where is a] Positive mutation leading to increased information?


Science 27 September 2002:
Vol. 297. no. 5590, pp. 2253 - 2256

A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila

P. J. Daborn,1 J. L. Yen,1 M. R. Bogwitz,2 G. Le Goff,1 E. Feil,1 S. Jeffers,3 N. Tijet,4 T. Perry,2 D. Heckel,2 P. Batterham,2 R. Feyereisen,5 T. G. Wilson,3 R. H. ffrench-Constant1*

Insecticide resistance is one of the most widespread genetic changes caused by human activity, but we still understand little about the origins and spread of resistant alleles in global populations of insects. Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance. Resistance and up-regulation in Drosophila populations are associated with a single Cyp6g1 allele that has spread globally. This allele is characterized by the insertion of an Accord transposable element into the 5' end of the Cyp6g1 gene



You lose.


Posted that twice and you ignored it both times.  I can see why.



Make that 4, no 5 times.


I have to wonder why, what with your amazing science-related doctorate and in-depth understanding of all science, you keep avoiding substantive points - especially when this tactic feeds into my character analysis of you and adds more evidence to my demonstration of your projective tendencies.


Oh, and Lester - is it still your position that Darwin knew of Popper's work?



(Edited by derwood 10/10/2009 at 11:49 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:47 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Demon - from Archaeopteryx article



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment: n/a



Rate this post:
 Insightful Poignant Thought Provoking Comprehensive Funny Neutral Obfuscated Paltry Trite Off Topic Ambiguous    
That's because new, microscopic images of the ancient cells and blood vessels inside the bones of the winged, feathered, claw-handed creature show unexpectedly slow growth and maturation that took years, similar to that found in dinosaurs, from which birds evolved. In contrast, living birds grow rapidly and mature in a matter of weeks.


Oh yup, that must just prove it. It's amazing how easy it is to prove if you want to believe it. It amazes me what one can see on 165 million year old cells and blood vessels. It amazes that there is still something to see!

Lester, I have to say that I find myself losing patience with your foolish comments.


Tell me Demon, what features of archaeopteryx are definately dinosaur like?


Dinosaurian features of Archaeopteryx:
 - skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs (like deinonychosaurs).  
 -  jaw with teeth
 -  long bony tail
 -  claws
 -  seperate fingers on the wing (in modern birds these bones are fused)
 -  neck attaches to the skull from behind (as in dinosaurs) instead of from below (as in modern birds)
 -  And as indicated in the article, a growth rate closer to dinosaurs than to birds

Bird-like features of Archaeopteryx:
 -  feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.
 - opposable big toe

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:51 AM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, I have to say that I find myself losing patience with your foolish comments.

The problem is not with my foolish comments, Orion, but with your foolish beliefs. If I say something that does not fall in with your belief system, it is foolishishness to you; and likewise your comments to me are plain foolish.
You need to examine your beliefs more carefully. Try looking at the fossil record objectively rather than with an eye to possible future finds that might verify your belief system; you need to look at ‘speciation’ more carefully and try to understand why it does not count as macroevolution to people with eyes. Fruit fly to begin with, fruit fly in the end. If it does not count as macroevolution for us, you’re just going to have to try to understand. If you believe that a fruit fly becoming a fruit fly is a clear sign that a far more complex organism is in the offing, then you may be beyond help. If your excuse is that time is essential so the evidence will never be seen, then you need to see that for the faith statement that it is.
skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.

jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat? Other ancient birds had teeth. The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx. Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?
If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.
Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings. Same for flying insects, flying reptiles (pterodactyls) and flying mammals (bats).






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 01:34 AM on October 11, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, are you admitting that it WAS you insulting and denigrating a PhD-holding YEC because he is honest enough to admit that there IS evidence for evolution and that evolution is science?


Oh Derwood, let me bow down and kiss your foot. Yes, it must have been me. I know of no other Lester10 in the whole wide world so I am just going to have to take responsibility for my comments. Insulting and denigrating? If that is so, then you do that to me every time I move, why should I be ashamed? Why should I ever care for your opinion on matters of etiquette?

Awww.... How condescending, arrogant, elitist, and pathetic of you


Isn’t that you insulting and denigrating again, Derwood? I can hardly believe it! I figured you must be free of these vices that you so freely hand out advice.

Do you read ANYTHING that you comment on BEFORE you spew?


Aaah, there you go again!

he is honest enough to admit that there IS evidence for evolution and that evolution is science?


All he said there, is what happens to agree with you, and you are SO reasonable as long as you are agreed with. I, however, find it illogical and am still waiting for the man,TODD,not Ted, to clarify what evidence he has found for evolution. I don’t believe there is any, so I am waiting for his follow-up with anticipation. If you should spot this evidence first, please be sure and let me know.

Oh, and Lester - is it still your position that Darwin knew of Popper's work?


It can’t still be my position if I don’t remember ever having a position on this question.

Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Make that 4, no 5 times.


This is what I call MANIPULATION and COERCION, Derwood. Don’t send me screeds of old news repeated ad infinitum so that I receive it every time I tune in. I will never answer it under those circumstances. It does not have the effect of overwhelming me with cleverness, it only bores me and I scroll right past it without being bothered to read it. If you are desperate to have me answer something, then make it short and concise and drop the ‘Ha, I got you, you’re avoiding me because you have no answer, I’m so clever, you’re so stupid, Derwood is the king of the world filled with wisdom and light’. I don’t have time for screeds and when you get to the “Why are you ignoring this for the 432 237864th time, everybody will be long over you and I still won’t have answered.

 




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:47 AM on October 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:47 AM on October 11, 2009 :

All he said there, is what happens to agree with you, and you are SO reasonable as long as you are agreed with. I, however, find it illogical and am still waiting for the man,TODD,not Ted, to clarify what evidence he has found for evolution. I don’t believe there is any, so I am waiting for his follow-up with anticipation. If you should spot this evidence first, please be sure and let me know.


It's already there, you didn't actually READ his blog did you?


[url=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JrdeMnfIDjs/SreKN8WxZYI/AAAOQ/uvfkcUS0z4k/s1600-h/notchtree.jpg[/url]

. . . All animals could truly have identical Notch proteins, and they would work fine. Or animals could have Notch proteins that have a random bunch of differences. They would still work fine. Instead, what we find is a set of proteins that have a very particular pattern of similarities, a pattern that is very easy to explain if the Notch proteins evolved like this:

. . . How can a creationist explain this? At present, not very easily. There have been some attempts at refuting these patterns, but they are not very convincing. Looking back at Steve's explanatory options, I reject the notion of functional requirement and historic contingency, so that leaves the preference of a designer. The question is why? For what purpose did God arrange Notch proteins in that particular pattern?

At this point, someone usually raises the idea that God would be deceptive if He created things to look like evolution if they didn't really evolve.. . .


(Edited by Apoapsis 8/1/2010 at 02:14 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:20 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:20 PM on October 11, 2009 :

It's already there, you didn't actually READ his blog did you?


Clearly not - if he had, I doubt he would have referred to him as "Ted" earlier.  Lester is one of these YECs that seems to think that vilifying people like me and even fellow YECs like Wood is a better approach than actually dealing with the issues.  And embellishing your credentials doesn't hurt...

Well, actually it does, since you end up looking like a fool when you claim to understand things then having the things you write all but prove that you do not...





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:45 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:47 AM on October 11, 2009 :
Insulting and denigrating? If that is so, then you do that to me every time I move, why should I be ashamed?

Yes, why should you be ashamed for engaging in the very activity you, first, accuse others of engaging in and second, you claim to find so repugnant.
You should be ashamed because he is a YEC, just like you.  And you attaacked and ridiculed and insulted him for the sole purpose that he is not blinded by his Faith, as you are.


Why should I ever care for your opinion on matters of etiquette?

You should not care what I think, that is true.  But you might be a bit more concerned with how your behavior toward a fellow YEC makes your kind look to fence-sitters and less arrogant, angry evangelicals.
Awww.... How condescending, arrogant, elitist, and pathetic of you


Isn’t that you insulting and denigrating again, Derwood?


No, that is mje being sarcastic.
I can hardly believe it! I figured you must be free of these vices that you so freely hand out advice.

I never claimed to be free of vice, and that is the big difference.

YOU claim to be a follower of the Prince of Peace.  YOU claim to have a sciencde-related PhD.
YOU imply that the very antics you engage in are repugnant when engaged in by others (usually far less so).
I.e., you are being hypocritical.

Do you read ANYTHING that you comment on BEFORE you spew?


Aaah, there you go again!

Yes, there I go again demonstrating the typical internet YECs antics - hear of something that you find ghastly, skim the relevant material, produce a knee-jerk half-witted retort, and claim victory.

You didn't even get the guy's name right, for crying out loud.

he is honest enough to admit that there IS evidence for evolution and that evolution is science?


All he said there, is what happens to agree with you, and you are SO reasonable as long as you are agreed with.


I simply poinnted out that a YEC with a legitimate, real doctorate acknowledges that there is evidence for evolution.  He actually does study the scientific evidence, and admits this.

You find him just as repugnant as you find me, perhaps more so because you probably see him as a traitor of some sort.  And so you lash out.

I, however, find it illogical and am still waiting for the man,TODD,not Ted, to clarify what evidence he has found for evolution.

I finnd it illogical, too, and he has explained why he takes the position he does - it is purely religious.  


I don’t believe there is any,

So you keep saying.
If you should spot this evidence first, please be sure and let me know.

Much has been presented to you on this board alone, you simply reject it on idiosyncratic grounds and/or out of hand.

Oh, and Lester - is it still your position that Darwin knew of Popper's work?


It can’t still be my position if I don’t remember ever having a position on this question.



Oh no?  Good thing I can use the search function:

ME:I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.

YOU: Much like Darwin did I would imagine. And these are two evolutionists we're talking about.

Oh Lester - still curious as to why you keep ignoring this:

Make that 4, no 5 times.


This is what I call MANIPULATION and COERCION, Derwood. Don’t send me screeds of old news repeated ad infinitum so that I receive it every time I tune in. I will never answer it under those circumstances.


You never answered it prior to my reiteration.  I KNOW why you didn't - those posts presneted demonstrations of you MANIPULATING my words to make it appear as though I referred to things I did not (shall I find that again for you, too?) and it provided EVIDENCE for things you claim do not exist.

You simply ignore such demonstrations.

And I find it laughable that you now want to make it appear as though you are taking the high ground, when all you are doing is coming across like a scared fool.



It does not have the effect of overwhelming me with cleverness, it only bores me and I scroll right past it without being bothered to read it.

Of course you do - why wouldn't a person with a fabricated educational background who apparently cannot actually understand legitimate scientific questions actually address demonstrations of their ignorance?



If you are desperate to have me answer something, then make it short and concise and drop the ‘Ha, I got you, you’re avoiding me because you have no answer, I’m so clever, you’re so stupid, Derwood is the king of the world filled with wisdom and light’. I don’t have time for screeds and when you get to the “Why are you ignoring this for the 432 237864th time, everybody will be long over you and I still won’t have answered.


Frankly, I don't care if you answer it or not, and every time you do not, anyone reading it will see that you simply cannot do the things you claim to be able to do.

Like say, be honest.  Remember?
 


(Edited by derwood 10/11/2009 at 4:56 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:04 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The horse series and creationism

Microevolution needs variation to work with. Variation is a property of populations, not of individuals or a pair of individuals. Where did the variation come from to allow the rapid diversification of horses in just a few centuries?

First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.


(Edited by Apoapsis 10/11/2009 at 10:24 PM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:53 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Totally ignored, with no excuse.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 01:54 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 2:20 PM on October 11, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:47 AM on October 11, 2009 :

All he said there, is what happens to agree with you, and you are SO reasonable as long as you are agreed with. I, however, find it illogical and am still waiting for the man,TODD,not Ted, to clarify what evidence he has found for evolution. I don’t believe there is any, so I am waiting for his follow-up with anticipation. If you should spot this evidence first, please be sure and let me know.


It's already there, you didn't actually READ his blog did you?




. . . All animals could truly have identical Notch proteins, and they would work fine. Or animals could have Notch proteins that have a random bunch of differences. They would still work fine. Instead, what we find is a set of proteins that have a very particular pattern of similarities, a pattern that is very easy to explain if the Notch proteins evolved like this:

. . . How can a creationist explain this? At present, not very easily. There have been some attempts at refuting these patterns, but they are not very convincing. Looking back at Steve's explanatory options, I reject the notion of functional requirement and historic contingency, so that leaves the preference of a designer. The question is why? For what purpose did God arrange Notch proteins in that particular pattern?

At this point, someone usually raises the idea that God would be deceptive if He created things to look like evolution if they didn't really evolve.. . .


(Edited by Apoapsis 8/1/2010 at 02:14 AM).






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 02:19 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis
First, horse evolution is not microevolution. Although it's a vague term, microevolution generally refers to evolutionary changes within a species. Horse evolution produced new species, genera, and even subfamilies. I'll probably get a lot of flak for saying this, but horse evolution counts as a kind of macroevolution.


Posted by Apoapsis at Sun August 1, 2010 - 01:54 AM
Totally ignored, with no excuse.


Well clearly it passed me by or I would have answered most willingly.
Since everything I say is irrelevant, lets take it straight from the evolutionist's mouth shall we..

The Encyclopedia of Evolution has a section entitled "HORSE, EVOLUTION OF Saddled With Errors".
Where it says:
[Yale paleontologist Othniel C.] Marsh's classic (straight-line) development of the horse became enshrined in every biology textbook and in a famous exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. It showed a sequence of mounted skeletons, each one larger and with a more well-developed hoof than the last. (The exhibit is now hidden from public view as an outdated embarrassment.)
Almost a century later, paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled. In his book Horses (1951), he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilineal development at all.
… Marsh arranged his fossils to "lead up" to the one surviving species, blithely ignoring many inconsistencies and any contradictory evidence.

Milner, The Encyclopedia of Evolution (1993) page 375


Hope that helps.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:26 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

RE: the OP - you never did explain what you know that Wood, an academic with a legitimate degree and years of practical experience, does not.

Nor have you explained how it is that elephants and bears and tigers do not need to have their forelimbs attached to their axial skeleton despite such an arrangement being "necessary" according to Menton...

Etc.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:44 AM on August 1, 2010 | IP
Gaunt

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 03:44 AM on August 1, 2010 :
RE: the OP - you never did explain what you know that Wood, an academic with a legitimate degree and years of practical experience, does not.


I think you are missing the point. In lesterworld, the fact that wood disagrees with lester IS proof that he is lying. Since Lester is the all-knowing arbiter of truth in his own mind, and is incapable of introspection or self-awareness, if you disagree with him, that PROVES you are wrong.

Only such pathalogical certaint in his own delusion could explain how he doesnt feel the need to answer challenges (Challenge lester? That proves you are wrong!), provide evidence (One does not need to provide evidence for Lester-truth!), and his shameful cowardice in the face of facts proving him in error (If it proves lester wrong, it cannot exist, because lester cannot be wrong!).

See how, when confronted by a dedicated, longtime YECer who points out the evidence for evolution is real, Lester INSTANTLY labels him a liar, insane and all manner of other epithets designed to insulate Lester from having to consider alternatives.

Point out the unanimity of the world's scientific communities, and he asserts massive worldwide conspiracy (unevidenced, of course.

Point out how the majority of the world's clergy and the Vatican itself say he is wrong, and he says they are not real christians. (!!!)

He is so self-assured of his own omniscience that he knows more science than the world's scientists and more theology than the Pope, even though his own comments have shown ghim staggeringly ignorant of High school science, and I even had to correct and lecture him on church history and theology.


I could (once again) list all the basic questions and challenges he has consistently been too much of a coward to answer, but we all know his cowardice and dishonesty wont change, so what is the point?

The funny thing is, if we invited other YECists here, I suspect they would be mortified at lester's behavious, and embarassed to count him among their ranks...


-------
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane... or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that." (R Dawkins, 1989).

Direct quote from Lester10, in a post referencing Creationism:
"There's absolutely no evidence for it ever having happened. It remains imaginary and philisophical."
 


Posts: 196 | Posted: 04:43 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
RE: the OP - you never did explain what you know that Wood, an academic with a legitimate degree and years of practical experience, does not.

Nor have you explained how it is that elephants and bears and tigers do not need to have their forelimbs attached to their axial skeleton despite such an arrangement being "necessary" according to Menton...

Etc.


Apoapsis mentioned horse evolution. He seemed upset to be ignored. I answered him on the topic of horse evolution.Have you anything to say in defence of horse evolution while we're on the topic?

Do you still teach it?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:22 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:22 AM on August 2, 2010 :
Derwood
RE: the OP - you never did explain what you know that Wood, an academic with a legitimate degree and years of practical experience, does not.

Nor have you explained how it is that elephants and bears and tigers do not need to have their forelimbs attached to their axial skeleton despite such an arrangement being "necessary" according to Menton...

Etc.


Apoapsis mentioned horse evolution. He seemed upset to be ignored. I answered him on the topic of horse evolution.Have you anything to say in defence of horse evolution while we're on the topic?

Do you still teach it?




So, you are simply resigned to having abandoned the original topic of this thread?

We all know why, of course.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:15 AM on August 2, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Run
run
run


See the YEC run


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:10 AM on August 7, 2010 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.