Posts by inrainbows

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

So, nothing further to say about your 'attempt' to explain dolphin atavisms using ID. You just repeat what you said before really.

I think we can assume you know when you are backing a losing eohippus, but rather than concede your error, you ignore your error and carry on attacking a theory leaving the burning hulks of your supposed defences of ID behind you without a backward glance or by simply recapitulating inadequate arguments and not answering questions as regards their validity.

Holding onto your opinions is so easy when you ignore all the times they are shown to be unsuportable.

Sea levels are rising; why would environmental stress make a dolphin sprout atavistic limbs? Besides, what environmental stress would make a human be born with an atavistic tail? Why would THAT variation be built into the genome?

Are you claiming elephants have sufficient design variation built into become sea-going? And then mate with land-going elephants? You've not answered the question about whether your land-going dolphins could breed with their aqautic cousins. Or indicated ANY form of proof of such a postulation.

And doesn't it occur to you that (useless) atavistic hind limbs are NOT a survival trait.

You believe in intelligent design? Then the designs are not very good for something designed by an intelligence as distinct from a process. What do I mean?

A decent designer who could design an organsism with sufficient genetic flexibility to chnage in the manner you describe could also design it so this flexibility could happen far more quickly than the slow slow process of evolution.

If the data is there and the triggers for expressing that data are there then it would be possible to design dolphins that (for example) when kept in a small shallow water tank with a beach would have babies with usable legs.

This is of course nonsense, as is your hypothesis.

Proving WHO designed life intelligently is no more a task of ID than is proving abiogenesis a task of evolution.

Wrong. Evolution explains HOW species come about. Not how life came about.

You need to explain how your designer came about as your designer is required for how life came about AND how species come about.

You say you don't hold with special design, but unfortunately for you (unless you throw out all dating methods) species have arisen in the past few hundred million years that would EITHER require macro-evolution or a new special design, because they were not about before.

It is incredibly hypocritical to hold me to a standard you don't even aspire to acheive. On this thread I have not suggested WHO designed anything, have I?

No, because you know your whole pretence at having anything approaching a credible theory falls into ashes if you do.

I have never stated that I believe in special design of each kind of life.

No, but as noted above you still need the designer producing new 'kinds' at various points OR to believe in macro-evolution.

Any answer to the point about how little your faith is? Why cannot the designer be brilliant enough to make it all happen with a single throw of the dice? Why do you limit the power of the designer and reduce it to a thing spinning plates?

And nothing on ERV's I see.

TopHat

I am so happy you've found your level.

48

Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

by skyking in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm.

the world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the dalarna province of sweden.

the spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

inrainbows

Perry

Of course I don't, that's why I asked to explain it since the statement seems to be in conflict with the statement from the University of Georgia above.

Well, why not read some more? You see, in all your discussions on the subject you come over as a presuppositionalist; someone who will do anything to avoid accepting scientific evidence if it disagrees with a book that is only acceptable as the absolute 'truth' if you presuppose it is.

So, why I or anyone else should pander to you by discussing a subject you have simply not bothered to research properly because you've already decided it is wrong I don't know.

What you have here is a failure that you will make time and time again doing what you do; looking for stuff that seems to support your argument without any underlying knowledge or in-depth examination.

For example, if you're sat in a basic Chemistry class at some point you will be taught there are three states of matter. This is rubbish. There are five states of matter. However, the teacher is not lying to you. They are simplifying the subject to make it easier to teach and understand.

You are not likely to encounter plasma or Bose-Einstein condensates on a regular basis or have to deal with them in basic chemistry, so it doesn;t really matter. If you study chemistry at a higher level then you learn the details.

Look here;

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/atoms/states.html

Three states of matter!

I personally loathe this, and have attracted annoyed stares from lecturers quite a few times in my academic career by pointing out these educational simplifications in class. I'm a cocky bastard in lectures as well as online. Some educators or resources phrase things better by saying 'main states of matter' or 'normal states of matter'. But anyone doing more than the barest minimum of research will find out that it is no secret thre are five states of matter.

Now, if you did more than the barest minimum of research you'd find out all the details of C14 dating and how it is calibrated. But your objective is NOT a real understanding of it. All you want are what you think are lose threads you can pick at so you can retain your beliefs and posture as though this was in anyway crediblle. You assume there is disagreement when all there is is a simple explanation and a complicated one.

That answers question 1.

2. Do you think that the premises of the U of G and the other sources than I'm sure you'll find that disagree would sometimes produce a different result from each other in their C 14 tests?

Rephrase this in grammatical English. Once it is a understandable sentence I think you'll find the above explains it.

3. For the sources that claim that calibration is needed, do you think that their preconceived notions of age affect the calibration process?

No. If you did proper research so would understand this, but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

4. Why do C14 labs ask the ones submitting samples to tell them the "expected" age?

If you did proper research you would know this. Instead you use your superficial knowleedge (and probably cribbing from some Creationist site) to beg the question and create the impression of deceit. If you try to find out why and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

5. Can you explain the 'science" behind the calibration process?

Yes. If you did proper research so could you but I doubt you are genuine in your attempt to understand this. If you try and show me you have tried and cannot understand it I will be more than happy to help.

6. Do you think that the scientists in charge of the soft tissue in the dinosaur bones in the video clip I presented above, would ever in a "million years" allow that soft tissue to be C14 dated in blind tests? Or, would hell freeze over first?

Here you beg the question again. You probably know that C14 only works back to 50,000 bp. You also probably know that the samples were recovered from inside bones that are dated to around 65 million years from the rock they were discovered in. Thus your question is idiotic.

You probably don't know the scientist who discovered them has condemed attempts by YEC's et.al. to use this to back their supersticious beliefs.

You probably don't know that rather than disproving evolution or dating techniques, all this is is a discovery that scientists have something else to understand, which they have immediately set about doing. At the end of the day it means the understanding of fossilisation was wrong, not that T-Rex was around a few tens-of-thousands of years ago.

Instead you try to make it look like they would avoid making a (pointless) test on something that is undatable by C14 in order to deceive people.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10021606.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html

Again, I'm not a scientist. I have learned to question those who claim to have some sort of title deed to truth apart from God's Word though.

See? You have no proof that God's word is the truth but assume it is. How scientific you are NOT.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

I deeply regret your lack of honesty. You can't even accept you went off on one at comments that were not even directed at you.

I haven't done so since and doubt seriously whether I will ever again on this subject, in future.

And? Sorry, colour me unimpressed.

What I want is something we can empirically prove and reproduce which can no longer mate with either its ancestor or empirically known common descendant to produce offspring. To my knowledge (and possibly due to the rarity of okapi) no one has ever attempted to cross-breed an okapi and a giraffe. I have emailed to ask a noted zoologist whether this has been attempted and will be happy to share any reply I receive.

My stab at humour/thought experiment/example of unreasonableness seems to miss you entirely, and maybe that is my fault so I will explain what I mean.

First of all if is lampooning your position somewhat. The reasons why I think your postion is lampoonable has already been explained.

Second, even given the apparently not so obvious hyperbolic elements integral to the lampoon, I am not talking about interspecies fertility using that example, I am talking about one animal giving birth to one different enough to meet your apparent standards of speciation not by means of hybridisation but by means of a large single generation genetic shift. This would not be a white-head gull/finch/salamandar variants that rarely interbreed, but something that might meet your requirements

However inane your insistence that my standard is unreasonable, until that is accomplished you haven't got a proven case.

I haven't got a proven case to you. Others differ. And my opinion of your standard being unreasonable is mine. You don't have to share it. However, I know that the godless conspiarcy of evolutionary scientists who know far more than you or I ever will about the subject would agree with me. And whilst that argument may approach fallacy, if you said take medicine A and those who'd studied medicine said take medicine B, I'd follow their advice unless you had a far far better argument than you do.

I would recommend selecting something with a much faster life cycle and much larger populations to accomplish the feat.

So, you haven't read up on those easily found Talk Origin examples, or do they look too much alike to meet your standards even though they are not interfertile. Which one is it?

Your cute 'okapi' comment is not a very practical expectation at all, on either count, especially considering the low fertility rates among okapi due to widely divergent haploid variations.

As explained, this attempt at lampooning failed entirely as you missed it. It wasn't mean to be practical, it's mean to illustrate how unreasonable you are.

Variation allowed for within the coding itself.

I am tempted to follow Burn's lead and go blah blah blah at that. That's not an explanation of WHY, it's you desperately clutching at straws.

If (as you seem to allege) there is design required, then why would that design allow a dolphin to sprout atavistic legs? Why would that be required genetic variation? In case the dolphin wanted to pop down to the shops?

Is the designer a fan of those little transformer toys? He likes his designs to morph from fish to terrestial terapod, maybe even to avian?

Come off it. And you think evolution is unbelievable.

Can you explain why evolutionists insist that intentionally engineered adaptability to environmental stressors within a given range would be a poor design model?

So, you are saying, if I can follow your argument, that dolphins have the ability to develop legs due to environmental stress? But that if they did so they would still be dolphins and interfertile with aqautic dolphins going back to when the design was made? Please confirm, this is great.

And biomorphic variation (which exists) is different from speciation, although one might lead to another given seperation of gene pools.

I might not be able to prove to you specifically who intelligently designed life,

So, you don't have a theory. I obviously have to say it for you as you won't come out with it.

but humans can consistently reproduce intelligently designed life that is speciated, can't we, inrainbows?

Is this the god as spaceman lark?

Glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants come to mind, somehow. And the things we have done with various grasses? Oh my.
Oddly, we don't have to actually start from scratch.

Yeah, we've been GM'ing before genetics. This is not a proof of ID. And you know it is not a proof of ID.

Can you consistently reproduce such speciation by generational separation and random mutation?

You haven't read those links on Talk Origins, have you? The answer is 'yes, but not to the macro extent you seem to require given your refusal to give a clear descriptor of what would prove it to you'.

Burn

You said;

We need proof

... and thus associated yourself with the level of proof I was discussing.

If I was wrong and you didn't mean that, fine, but I thought you were supporting that level of proof as that's what you seemed to say.

And whilst I wouldn't support 'argue', I do wish someone from that camp would have a real go at it. Discussion like this is fun. I can't believe the avenue Auld's trying but maybe his clarification will adjust my mirth co-efficient.

Now, I'm running late for the train, I need to fly. Obviously I have the genes for that somewhere but (pats pockets)

(PS Auld, yes, I am not serious, I know you're not saying things can just sprout wings, you're saying under the right environmental stress their babies can, I think, hopefully you'll clarify).)

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Burn

The level of proof you require is so high that if applied to the hypotheses of Creationism or ID, it makes them unprovable. Thus proponents of such hypotheses requiring a level of proof they cannot provide for their own beliefs are engaging in intellectual dishonesty. A great big fat double standard.

Not that they'll admit it.

People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones.

But go on, for a laugh, explain away a dolphins with atavistic rear limb/fins. To me the only rational explanation is evolutionary theory, and that it validates macroevolution.

What's your take on it? Other than disappearing from the converastion or avoiding answering it or intellectual dishonesty? Not that you'd do any of that.

What I find enormously funny is that those partaking in such empty posturing are doing so out of a wish to insist in some 'greater power/god/designer'. And that if they had enough faith, then their belief in such an entity doing things using natural selection would be quite possible.

Science gets the stick from believers who don't have enough faith to believe their entity of choice can make the Universe just by blowing on the dice the right way.

Isn't that ironic?

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

AuldSoul

Your idea of respect diverges quite a lot from mine. Divergent evolution prehaps? What use is mouthing respect if those you mouth it at don't feel it?

As I have conceded the points about ring species, your lack of conceding you made a non-comparable comparison is really illustrative.

You refuse to define ("set goal posts") a speciation event yourself, and thus predictably avoid ever having to accept one ever happened.

Instead you ask me to show an example of what I mentioned (evolutionary divergence over time resulting in infertiltity). You are asking for a proof that is not obtainable in observable time scales. I assume in saying this that by "empirical" you mean 'observable by the senses', and are excluding the many examples of similar species that cannot interbreed any persual of Talk Origins/a Univerisity library/Google can give you.

In effect you DO want to have an okapi give birth to a giraffe in your lap.

I predicted that you would either refuse to set goal-posts or set unreasonable standards. I never dreamed I would get both predictions right.

We mustn't miss out you ignoring the holes in the hypotheses competing with modern evolutionary theory. This is typical behaviour of the ID/creationist group, as previously commented. I am however, no prophet (there's no money in it, ho ho), I've just seen it all before.

Have you looked at the ERV information refered to by Gallileo yet?

Can you explain how dolphins with atavistic rear limbs fit ID/Creationism? This alone is a proof of macroevolution as it is consistent with evolutionary theory and inexplicable by ID/Creationism.

Any comment about the stunning "Marsupial 'world'", "Lemur 'world'" and "Bird 'world'" evolutionary examples that ID/Creationism cannot explain?

Rather than trying to satisfy your increasingly unreasonable standards of proof;

What EMPIRICAL proof do you have that an ass bred to hyracotherium or to megahippus would be an infertile breeding?

(pats pockets looking for time machine)

... I think it's time you shored up the holes in your own hypothesis.

ERV. Dolphin atavism. Australia/Madagasgar/New Zealand; explain.

You don't have to, of course, but you seem to want to be taken seriously. So, step up...

108

The JWD stigma about being "nice"

by changeling in

jw
friends

i'm back from a little jwd break and i'm happy to see that things are not as volatile as when i left.

however, some things never change.

and one thing that seems to be a constant around here is the mentality of some very intelligent and knowledgeble ones (in their own minds at least) that if you are "nice" you are some how emotionally needy and/or not too bright.. i don't think the "happy people" on the board have anything against people with high iq's.

inrainbows

Arrogance, willful ignorance, bad manners and cluelessness are not nice qualities.

Arrogance is, for example, presuming that after being so wrong about our religious beliefs we do not need to seriously re-examine our beliefs regarding the nature of god, 'holy books' and science that have been so wharped by our exposure to a cult.

Willful ignorance is refusing to inform oneself adequately when one has deficiencies in ones knowledge pointed out.

Bad manners is not conceeding error when one commits error, not giving credit where credit is due.

Cluelessness is wondering why people get annoyed when one displays one or more of the above qualities.

If you observe 'un-nice discussions' they often feature ex-cultists still clinging to cultic preconceptions and assumptions about the world being offended at the very idea they might not be adequately informed about a subject to be able to competently pass judgement, refusing to go and do anything about their lack of knowledge, not admitting they didn't know things or saying they were wrong when they were, and then being surprised at the reaction they provoke.

Obviously sometimes those who are more knowledgeable (and it is mostly about knowledge, not about intelligence) are irracable, caustic, unreasonable etc., without any real reason. Sometimes they are just pushed to it by the above described behaviour. People pretending to have a discussion when they are just repeating the preconceptions they started with that no facts will change are annoying.

Ego can have as much to do with the 'I'm not adequately informed about this subject but am going to pontificate anyway' crew as with the 'intellectual' crew.

People should be free to be warm and fuzzy as they like, but being warm and fuzzy in a serious discussion (on a discussion board) and being bruised by the reaction is a result of their unrealistic expectations. Warm and fuzzy works on warm and fuzzy threads. Proper discussion need mutual respect, but that is a two way street; the aforementioned behaviour is not respectful.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Ho ho, what a suprise.

Not one ID or Creation supporter going anywhere near dolphins with vestigial rear limbs.

Ignoring contrary evidence is essential to maintaining those opinions.

NEITHER CAN EXPLAIN AVATISMS LIKE THIS.

So they don't even try.

Likewise, Madagascar, New Zealand and Australia are very stong 'testiments' to evolutionary theory.

So Creationists and ID'ers don't want to talk about them, do they?

Instead, it's all about 'slick gamesmanship', making what play they can with the amount of 'theoretical slack' that modern evolutionary thoery has without ever conceeding that none of this 'slack' actually falsifies the theory.

At the same time they ignore the much larger levels of 'hypothetical slack' their own incomplete belief systems have.

Auld Soul

With Rapidly Declining Respect,

Oh please. Your 'Respecfully' is nothing more than a conceit. You have already reacted to statements not even directed to you in a defensive fashion and not apologised for your error. Don't pretend to have respect you don't show, it's disingenuous.

Now, will you give a clear example of what would prove speciation to you?

Or is the idea of setting clear goal posts unattractive to you?

Because if you set them and it's proved you have to change your opinion, or if you set unreasonable ones that could not be expected to be proved due to the evidential and chronological constraints of the theory your unreasonable level of required proof could be exemplified?

Wadoma tribe has a high percentage of an aberrant 7th chromosome causing an apparent "ostrich" foot, yet they are human. Will their spotty fossil remains be pegged as a different species by later intelligent lifeforms perusing the remains of our planet?

No, because there's a difference between structural abnormality and speciation, and any alien species would be able to discern the difference between the two, as indeed can we.

Early images of H. neanderthalis were based on a diseased specimen. We now know the stooped ape-man image was inaccurate as we can tell the difference between normative H. neanderthalis and diseased ones.

Kung Bushmen (with an average height of just four feet, ten inches) in Africa inhabit the same continent with extremely tall Maasai. Surely these were different species, right?

We can already show from fossil remains that pygmatism is an environmental adaptation (as is gigantism) and does not necessarily indicate a speciation event (e.g. Shire Horses and Fabella's as an unnatural selection example, although that particular example would in the wild result in unstoppable gene drift between the two population as copulation is impossible without human assitence. Same is true with Toy Dogs and very large breeds). Any genetic analysis of remains would confirm this.

H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens were both human too. They may well have interbred. But at SOME point in the line of decent the genetic drift would mean a g x the power of n grand sire would be infertile when crossed with it's descendents.

The scientific names are just place holders of note, not the start of new chapters.

As much as you try and make out speciation to be a black/white transition, no contemporary evolutionist would ever say anything so obviously wrong and unsupported by the evidence. This does not mean that speciation does not extend to the point where interbreeding is no longer possible or that it does not result in 'macroevoution'.

Slick gamesmanship - and not very clever slick gamesmanship at that - will not answer the questions you have been asked that you avoid that show how inadequate your own hypotheses are.

Stop making ridiculous examples. You still haven't conceded using an example of a 'separate gene pools breeding event' to compare to a 'same gene pool breeding event' was a bad example, but then not conceding your errors is just part of 'ID' (or whatever you'd be happy with as a descriptor) apologist technique, no matter how many 'Respectfully's you tag your posts with.

Perry

I thought atheist evolutionists were for random events, given enough time of course
Perry, don't do this. The only persons who find this impressive are those who know as much or less about evolution than you.

For a start, it's not a question of being FOR random events. They just ARE, whether you are for them or not. I'm not FOR bad weather. It still HAPPENS.

For a second thing, you are just waving around tired old 'Creationist/ID misleading gambit #1', which is making it sound like evolution is a random process. It isn't. It might 'use' variation generated randomly as part of a process of natural selection, but that process is mind-buggeringly NON-random. The whole point of natural selection is that it is non-random.

Oh, and are theistic evolutionists somehow different?

Here’s an example of the ludicrous attitude of IDers and Creationists shifted into a different area of science. Hopefully it will show why people supporting such scientifically bankrupt hypotheses as ID and Creationism get the reaction they do from proper scientists;

“Me, I think Continental Drift is a lie and a conspiracy. I've spent many long hours observing continents and I have never seen them move. Yes, I know they can prove that there is SOME movement between continents on a measurable basis, but that would never be enough to smash India into Asia and create the Himalayas. I know they can also show supposed ‘fault lines’ between ‘continental plates’, but I remain unconvinced that these can ever separate to the extent that these misguided scientists say they do.
Likewise the 'flips' of magnetic poles that are meant to happen every now and then are just rubbish. No one can properly explain why they happen and even thought the evidence for this ties in with the evidence for continental drift I think this might be coincidental. Just as the shape of the East coast of South America, the West coat of Africa, and the similarity of the geology on these coastlines is coincidental.
There is a massive conspiracy to suppress the opinions of any scientist who does not fall in line with the modern theory of contintal drift. There is no way that the continents could be the shape they are unless they were designed that way by some external agency, but I am afraid I have no proof of the existence of this external agency other than my say-so, and no theory of how it happened other than my assertion.”

48

Flood? World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden

by skyking in

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm.

the world's oldest recorded tree is a 9,550 year old spruce in the dalarna province of sweden.

the spruce tree has shown to be a tenacious survivor that has endured by growing between erect trees and smaller bushes in pace with the dramatic climate changes over time.

inrainbows

Perry, why do you expect US to teach YOU about a subject you clearly already consider yourself to be well informed about to make sweeping statements about?

Don't you know how they calibrate C14 dating? If you don't, how can you say it is inaccurate?

Now, if you're willing to say "I don't know how they calibrate C14 dating and don't want to learn, please someone tell me", I'll tell you.

If you do know and have a question about it or criticism of it, then say that and I'll respond.

Anything else is just bluster and evasion on your part.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Good points about occasional interbreeding in commonly cited ring-species. Of course, mules can sometime breed too.

The fact that a process takes place which means that interbreeding become vastly raregets ignored, and there doesn't seem to be any wish to consider the implications of such a process through real evolutionary time scales, i.e. that vastly rare might become none.

No attempt to document the clear signs that genetic drift is limited that one would expect.

And then of course the fundamental lack of trouserage both Creationism and it's cousin have; lack of theory. Forms of criticism than cannot assemble any form of theory themselves coherent enough to be subject to scientific testing or falsification.

I'll wait on responding to any post after 17.11 as I've not read them yet, having pecked this out between work. And now it is home time.

For now I'd love to know how this photo is explicable using the Creationist and ID hypotheses.

(hint, dolphins don't have anal fins... well, not normally)

Mmmm... this fits evolutinary theory.

It does not fit Creationism or ID.

Nor does this

"True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

I'd also love to see someone fit the fauna of Australia, Madagasgar and New Zealand into an ID or Creationist format. Fits evolution like a glove. I suspect given that ring species was new to you guys that you may not grock me, but I can explain the question (obvious to anyone who's studied evolution) if need be.

365

Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

by Perry in

i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

(intellignet design).

inrainbows

Auld

One might well use similar taxonomomical methods to speciate Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid.

No, one might not. If you were to draw the typical ranges of taxonomical features of the above groups in the manner of a Linn diagramm, the area of overlap would be very high and preclude speciation even if they were not living.

Surely there is cause for speciation if one examines the social habits of each group during, let's say, the 400s to 800s AD.

No there is not, as there is proof of interbreeding in the mentioned periods. There is no proof of interbreeding in Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls, a classic example of a ring species, but then you wouldn't know that.

BSC is an example of science employing extreme bias in defining its terms so that it can be deemed correct.

Explain

There's "plenty there" alright, plenty of talk and plenty of eagerness to bolster Darwinist theory by whatever imaginative stretches may be employed to the task.

Please, don't get all Daily Mail. 'Bolster'? Like it needs it? And as you demostrate, you need to know more before you can be quite so authoratative.

There is nothing of any weight whatsoever when it comes to showing that one thing evolved FROM another thing significantly different in form and function, not using mere behavior or decoration to speciate.

Okay, define what level of difference in form and function would satisfy you. I am very aware in addition to not knowing the off-side rule you may well move the goal posts.

Define what would prove it to you. I get a sinking feeling nothing short of a giraffe popping out of an okapi's ass into your lap would do it.