Right, because nothing you read that you agree with could ever be wrong. :chuckle:
Nice straw man. :thumb:
Real Science Friday: Stretching Out the Heavens
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Barbarian observes:
I found the original paper.
If one cites a paper, one is obligated to accurately report what it says. There is nothing in the paper about 200 million years with no change.
Well, let's take a look at that...
From Jefferson's summary of the paper:
Surprise.
I found the original paper.
If one cites a paper, one is obligated to accurately report what it says. There is nothing in the paper about 200 million years with no change.
Well, let's take a look at that...
From Jefferson's summary of the paper:
Surprise.
You suggested reading the "magazine" they cited, Barb did you one better, read the original paper. If it is as he says then Pastor Bob and his buddy Fred lied about the facts.
Can you give us a cite to the original paper, thanks.
No surprise that you're unable to respond with any integrity. There is no reason to take as true what you have read over what someone else has read.
Straw men and appeals to authority are the atheist's staple.
And let's throw in an appeal to ignorance. If the paper says nothing of change, how is that evidence of great change?
Ah, and I suppose you do not appeal to the authority of the now written oral tradition of goat herders.
No one is suggesting the paper states great change, just that Pastor Bob and his sidekick Fred use it to suggest stasis but perhaps the paper does not say that. So either Barb is wrong or Pastor Bob. Lets get the cite to the paper and then we can determine.
We can now add tu quoque to the list. :chuckle:
The classic wail of the cornered atheist, "But you might do it too!" :allsmile:
And, like I observed in the other thread, whenever the discussion is about evidence, you want to talk theology.
Or else the magazine they actually read presents a more accurate account of the facts. We know that Barbarian is no fan of accurately portraying a given situation. So, unless you retract this silly challenge, we can add false dichotomy to your rap sheet.
Here:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/08/16/rspb.2011.1289.full.pdf
BTW, I don't think it's so much a matter of lying as reading a magazine source that perhaps wasn't clear, and jumping to a conclusion. The key is that this species is unknown in the fossil record. Indeed, it has a suite of characters not seen in the fossil record, but cladistic analysis indicates that it is a member of the basal group from which all eels evolved.
It is primitive and a representative of a group assumed to have been long extinct. But it's not in the fossil record. A similar situation is the modern coelacanth, which likewise is primitive in many ways, but is unknown in the fossil record, and very different from fossil coelacanths.
Great! So now if only Barbarian could read the article in question or call up the show we might have a rational discussion. :thumb:
(The original paper shows that the claim of "200 million years of stasis" is incorrect)
Yep. Glad to be of help.
I just showed it to you. What anyone else said about it is immaterial, unless they have new evidence to bring forward. Do you have any?
The rest of us just did. Claim presented. Facts checked. Claim is false.
Yep. Glad to be of help.
I just showed it to you. What anyone else said about it is immaterial, unless they have new evidence to bring forward. Do you have any?
The rest of us just did. Claim presented. Facts checked. Claim is false.
some other dude
New member
From barbie's link:
Yeah, I figure either Jefferson or someone who wrote an article about that, read those words and somehow cobbled them together to suppose that it meant the eel hadn't changed at in 200 million years.
The eel is only known from modern specimens, and isn't even in the fossil record. We only suppose it is a representative of the basal group because of the primitive traits it retains. In the same way the modern horseshoe crab is a representative of the basal group of chelicerates, even though there are no representatives of the modern species in the fossil record. They are much changed from ancient chelicerates.
There is no evidence whatever for the eel being unchanged for 200 million years. You do understand that, don't you?
The eel is only known from modern specimens, and isn't even in the fossil record. We only suppose it is a representative of the basal group because of the primitive traits it retains. In the same way the modern horseshoe crab is a representative of the basal group of chelicerates, even though there are no representatives of the modern species in the fossil record. They are much changed from ancient chelicerates.
There is no evidence whatever for the eel being unchanged for 200 million years. You do understand that, don't you?
Pretty straightforward. The people who wrote the paper said one thing. Other people claim they said something else. We found the paper, and it doesn't say what others claim it says.
And that settles it. If you want to claim some other evidence supports your idea, that's worth discussing. Show us what you have.
Again, my point is not that anyone lied, but that one should be very careful about making claims for something, when one has not read the actual paper.
Sounds fair. :up:
So when are you going to read the article, listen to the show or call up so that your commentary is justified? :think:
I read the article. It appears Jefferson did not. I wish he would. I left a link for anyone who wants to see what it really says.
Do you think the part he posted is misleading as to his claim? If not, why would I want to read the rest? After all, I'm only commenting on that particular error.
Anyone who doubts it can go to the link and see what the article actually says.
Liar.
Depends on the source. :idunno:
Your link is not the source of the comment. You need to quit with the demand that every game be played upon your court.