Now alate would agree with me that common morphologies and common anatomies dont neccesarily indicate two animals are directly related to one common ancestor. Alate would argue that it does indicate one common ancestor for all life on the planet. That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that many times common morphologies and anatomies are indicative of design. All automobiles have wheels and an engine. What works very well for one creature can also work very well for another. Why radically engineer something different? The spine is found in all chordates. It is a very effiient organ used to transmit signals very fast. Why not use the same basic spine plan in thousands of organisms if it works very well? Why not just tweek it a little from one organism to the next? To me, it is just as valid an interpretation than morphologies and anatomies being passed down to a new organism when it evolves from another. Besides, how do you explain identical morphologies and anatomies appearing in the fossil record all at the same time in organisms from very different lineages?
Bob Talks to Kids about Evolution
- Thread starter DavisBJ
- Start date
I started reading again and i cant help but reply with a retort against what i see as bait and switch even if unintentional. The link for the tree frogs was given with the intention of showing that a change in genome size does not necessarily mean a change in morphology. I Had in mind a larger genome with different content in the extra size than could be found in the smaller genome. Copes southern tree frog merely duplicated its former genome and is now twice the size of the north american tree frog. The only real difference is a mutated section that nows allows for a shorter call. The 2 frogs are identical because there are no new sequences in copes frog, just duplicated ones.
Alateone. I said the exact chromosome in both the chimp and human should be exactly the same(#6 for example) . I said i did not know if that had been established. You said it did. It is not established if it doesnt follow a criteria like this one....... Chromosome 6 in both humans and chimps should contain exactly the same genes and these genes should be at the exact nucleotide distance from the beginning of the chromsome in each animal. You should be able to take a section of non coding dna that is the exact same nucleotide distance from the beginning in both organisms and the exact same nucleotide length of the section. These sequences should have exactly the sa order of nucleotides. In other words, you should be able to count 300 nucleotides from the beginning of the section and arrive at exactly the same nucleotide.
I am under no obligation to reveal any alternative and I am utterly justified in calling silly what I consider silly and providing good reason. I have done that. Species is a silly term, vague and malleable. Your response is to launch into an assault upon the term "kind" which is clearly defined and very understandable.
This has nothing to do with hypocrisy on my part and everything to do with your inability to involve yourself in civil and rational discourse.
I know. It equivocates.
Never said they did. :idunno:
Nope. You're flat out wrong. Having a definitive classification system and the process of classifying individuals are two utterly distinct things.
You need to think things through a little more carefully.
Only if you first assume the truth of your evolutionary theory.
Yeah...
And living longer?
Or maybe it's just a different balance. They don't seem to have any trouble surviving. :idunno:
Just like the offspring of Mbuti and Inupiat. :idunno:
:rotfl:
Platitudes - the proud domain of the evolutionist.
And perhaps you're over-stating your case.
:rotfl:
Where do you get these stupid ideas?
Alatone. Stripe gave you a strict definition of Kind. You want to know how to tell what kind an animal is. We have a vague idea what some of the kinds are but to be specific, any two animals that share a common ancestor are the same kind. You say biologists KNOW all animals share ONE common ancestor. No they don't. That is their interpretation. You can make the case for several common ancestors as well. As i have said before, the fossil record must make a clear case for common ancestry and the genetics must as well. Saying two genomes are homololgous doesn't tell me much of anything. You have to show me why you think they are. The molst important genetic qualification for common descent is the non coding dna. It must be in EXACTLY the same spot on the qenome of both animals before we can consider them as having a common ancestor.
Only if you are locked into the notion that all things must have descended from a single common ancestor. For us scientists, we are open to alternative ideas. :thumb:
But I'm happy to see that even religious fanatics like Jukia are able to clearly and easily understand scientific terminology. :up:
Sorry, I was unaware of your position as a scientist. I think you are simply telling another untruth. Please advise your specific scientific background--degrees, institutions, current work, publications etc. A copy of your C.V. should suffice.
Absent that information you remain a Liar for Jesus. He would not be happy with that. Although Pastor Bob seems willing to accept that title.
Thanks.
Dr.Watson
New member
Bingo. Stripe is a scientist like shoveling a quarter pounder is fine dining.
That's OK. Just don't do it again.
You're welcome.
And once again you are unwilling to face your prevarications. I would suggest that you are the one who should not do it again, but such a suggestion is lost on someone with no idea of how to separate fact from fiction or truth from lies.
Presenting science as a cartoon is the best way to convey it to children.
Only someone who has no interest in an honest conversation would say this.
Disney can do what they want. They have no excuse not to know basic evolution. Neither do public school teachers.
Throwing spears leading to speech.
It isn't a matter of incompetence. Live radio doesn't always go the way the host wants. But if you want an apology, call him.
Then Pastor Bob should have no excuse either, correct? He uses his apparent position of authority and of someone who knows what he is talking about to misrepresent science to children. If he does not know what he is talking about his should not. If he misrepresents on purpose (gets my vote) he is simply shameful and it amazes me that Pastor Bob and those like him believe his God supports his misstatements
It's such a teeny tiny part of the evidence that it's a good topic for you to discuss.
One of the reasons I know I'm right and you are wrong is that I acknowledge evolution's strengths, while you can't even acknowledge even the slightest weakness of evolution.
This is one of the goofiest rationales I have ever seen for determining if something is correct. Don’t make the determination based on the merits of the arguments, but on the demeanor of the people arguing. As irascible as Newton was personally, I guess Yorzhik would feel no compunction at rejecting Newton’s Law of Gravity.
That does not necessitate that it be presented incorrectly, as Enyart elected to do.
Once again, I am striving to hold an honest conversation. But if my approach transgresses some arcane personal rule you have, then feel free to walk away.
Your continued focus on trying to spread the blame for Enyart’s false presentation of evolution is noted. At least you have given up any pretense of defending your original assertion that you “find it unlikely he was using Lamarkian arguments”. But a straightforward admission on your part that Enyart was wrong would show some semblance of integrity on your part, instead of trying to distract the issue by casting blame on Disney and textbooks and teachers.
Why is that Lamarkian?
Enyart frequently boasts of besting numerous high-profile opponents on his show. But now you say he couldn’t even correctly guide the ideas he was presenting to really young kids from his own church. Come on Yorzhik, you said you listened to the show. This is embarrassing seeing this level of excuses come from you.
ApologeticJedi
New member
When I was in high school many years ago the giraffe argument of stretching their necks was in my textbook. I would say that was silly.
The problem with arguing against evolution is that it is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Our current knowledge of evolution has been altered after each new finding (often claimed by necessity according to finders). Granted, referencing the giraffe view is campy, but allows people not to be duped should they come across the same textbook I got saddled with in the 80s.
The problem with arguing against evolution is that it is like trying to nail jello to a wall. Our current knowledge of evolution has been altered after each new finding (often claimed by necessity according to finders). Granted, referencing the giraffe view is campy, but allows people not to be duped should they come across the same textbook I got saddled with in the 80s.