-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Here comes another one...
- Thread starter AronRa
- Start date
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
I see Gilbo has returned - welcome back!
And I also see that you're still conflating - dare I say, equivocating!? - "non-physical" and "supernatural". Despite my explaining about magnetic and gravitational lines of force.
Also, to remind you - since the discussion has transferred here:
James
I see Gilbo has returned - welcome back!
And I also see that you're still conflating - dare I say, equivocating!? - "non-physical" and "supernatural". Despite my explaining about magnetic and gravitational lines of force.
Also, to remind you - since the discussion has transferred here:
Kindest regards,Dragan Glas said:
James
First of all, my apologies for not replying until now, and due to life (such as it is), further replies may be equally delayed.
Unrelated: Thank you Frenger and hackenslash: as long as someone understands what I am attempting to get across, then it is certainly worth the effort.
Note below that I've condensed a couple of related quotes below for the sake of ease.
This is precisely what I was talking about when I said this in my previous post: Please, please, please stop thinking of evolution as a linear process, because it is at the very root of the issue with your criticisms, and I can guarantee will cause problems in other areas not yet discussed.
It is rather tactless of you to accuse me of not reading your reply when you have just repeated exactly what I stated. That you have done this demonstrates that while you may have glossed over what I said, you are not understanding or internalizing it, and as a result you cannot apply it. Nothing you said above disagrees with my statement that the specimens do not transition into the other. I told you that we do not assume this, and I am telling you again. Frenger also told you. Yes, it would absolutely be a leap of faith. Please stop accusing us of making assumptions, because we are not the ones at fault here. This is exactly where your inconsistency lies, and this is why I took the time to specifically spell out for you that transitional lineages only track the appearance of traits in relation to their ancestral and derived lineages. A transitional fossil is one that has characteristics in common both with its ancestor and its descendent groups. There is nothing in that definition that assumes one transitional fossil evolved into the next, more derived one, and if you have read even one scientific article documenting any fossil lineage, you would know that no scientist assumes this either. It is the characteristic themselves that are the most important factor; those are the things that go into constructing a phylogeny; those are the things that are used in the calculations. I gave you a reference to a paper on the Tetrapodamorpha that does exactly what you asked for: conduct experiments to show relatedness using characters. I can give you any number of papers outlining the very experiments you keep on demanding, but if you continue fight with us on how science uses transitional fossils and constructs phylogenies, it is impossible for you to ever get what you are asking, and you and you alone are perpetuating that. Here are some papers on whale phylogeny:
1) https://www.montclair.edu/profilepages/media/5008/user/Gatesy_et_al._2012_A_phylogenetic_blueprint_for_a_modern_whale.pdf
2) Uhen, M. D., 2010. The origin(s)of whales. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 38: 189-219.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152453
I barely had enough time to write this reply, and you are in no position to demand a summary or list of relevant quotes from me or anyone else here. We’ve already done the work; we understand it, now it’s your turn. What I will do is tell you to pay attention to the materials/methods and discussion sections. I also suggest reading the supplementary material because that is where they record all of their data.
Keeping in mind the genome itself is unaltered, only the heritable changes affect evolution, and it doesn’t really involve significant changes in morphology such that you would not be able to recognize them as related taxa.
Study harder. They aren’t assuming evolution is occurring, they’re testing their predictions of what would they would see if evolution did occur. That is not the same thing. Gaps are also a prediction that test the presence of potential homologies at specific sites. Moreover, how are any of us supposed to criticize this “experiment” of yours when you summarized it in only a few sentences? What crop plants did you use? Which program? What methods? And please correct if I’m wrong, but are you saying that the computer added gaps between DNA B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z (if anyone else here cares to answer, that's fine as well)?
Of course I’ve heard of the inconsistencies, and because I’m not the one in a bubble, I know what inconsistencies exist are minor in comparison, often corrected later on, and are still outweighed by the consistencies. This is the second time you have projected your own faults onto me. I suggest you stop, especially since the best you can do is toss in a link from a news website that doesn’t actually contradict anything I said. My use of the word tree is not in direct contrast to anything said in this report, because it involves a restructure primarily of the base due to the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer in unicellular organisms. This does not overturn phylogenetics, and a cursory glance at the literature would have told you the same thing:
1)Kim, Junhyong and Benjamin A. Salisbury. 2001. A tree obscured by vines: Horizontal gene transfer and the median tree method of estimating species phylogeny. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 6: 571-582.
2)Kurland, C. G., B. Canback and Otto G. Berg (2003) “Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 9658-9662. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1632870100v1
I was asking for a definition because you said fish=fish=still fish showed evolution did not occur, remember?
Indeed. The fact that you accept the definition of fish you provided means you accept that everything within the group is related. By default you accept that jaws appeared near the base of the group, as well as limb bones in a certain derived group. Limb bones that happen to be found in tetrapods as well.
The mere fact that you can't see the relevance or the connection I've been making here while other members in the forum can, is highly indicative of your level of understanding of biology and science in general.
Unrelated: Thank you Frenger and hackenslash: as long as someone understands what I am attempting to get across, then it is certainly worth the effort.
Note below that I've condensed a couple of related quotes below for the sake of ease.
gilbo12345 said:
This is precisely what I was talking about when I said this in my previous post: Please, please, please stop thinking of evolution as a linear process, because it is at the very root of the issue with your criticisms, and I can guarantee will cause problems in other areas not yet discussed.
It is rather tactless of you to accuse me of not reading your reply when you have just repeated exactly what I stated. That you have done this demonstrates that while you may have glossed over what I said, you are not understanding or internalizing it, and as a result you cannot apply it. Nothing you said above disagrees with my statement that the specimens do not transition into the other. I told you that we do not assume this, and I am telling you again. Frenger also told you. Yes, it would absolutely be a leap of faith. Please stop accusing us of making assumptions, because we are not the ones at fault here. This is exactly where your inconsistency lies, and this is why I took the time to specifically spell out for you that transitional lineages only track the appearance of traits in relation to their ancestral and derived lineages. A transitional fossil is one that has characteristics in common both with its ancestor and its descendent groups. There is nothing in that definition that assumes one transitional fossil evolved into the next, more derived one, and if you have read even one scientific article documenting any fossil lineage, you would know that no scientist assumes this either. It is the characteristic themselves that are the most important factor; those are the things that go into constructing a phylogeny; those are the things that are used in the calculations. I gave you a reference to a paper on the Tetrapodamorpha that does exactly what you asked for: conduct experiments to show relatedness using characters. I can give you any number of papers outlining the very experiments you keep on demanding, but if you continue fight with us on how science uses transitional fossils and constructs phylogenies, it is impossible for you to ever get what you are asking, and you and you alone are perpetuating that. Here are some papers on whale phylogeny:
1) https://www.montclair.edu/profilepages/media/5008/user/Gatesy_et_al._2012_A_phylogenetic_blueprint_for_a_modern_whale.pdf
2) Uhen, M. D., 2010. The origin(s)of whales. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 38: 189-219.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-040809-152453
I barely had enough time to write this reply, and you are in no position to demand a summary or list of relevant quotes from me or anyone else here. We’ve already done the work; we understand it, now it’s your turn. What I will do is tell you to pay attention to the materials/methods and discussion sections. I also suggest reading the supplementary material because that is where they record all of their data.
gilbo12345 said:
Keeping in mind the genome itself is unaltered, only the heritable changes affect evolution, and it doesn’t really involve significant changes in morphology such that you would not be able to recognize them as related taxa.
gilbo12345 said:
Study harder. They aren’t assuming evolution is occurring, they’re testing their predictions of what would they would see if evolution did occur. That is not the same thing. Gaps are also a prediction that test the presence of potential homologies at specific sites. Moreover, how are any of us supposed to criticize this “experiment” of yours when you summarized it in only a few sentences? What crop plants did you use? Which program? What methods? And please correct if I’m wrong, but are you saying that the computer added gaps between DNA B,C,D,E and W,X,Y,Z (if anyone else here cares to answer, that's fine as well)?
gilbo12345 said:
Of course I’ve heard of the inconsistencies, and because I’m not the one in a bubble, I know what inconsistencies exist are minor in comparison, often corrected later on, and are still outweighed by the consistencies. This is the second time you have projected your own faults onto me. I suggest you stop, especially since the best you can do is toss in a link from a news website that doesn’t actually contradict anything I said. My use of the word tree is not in direct contrast to anything said in this report, because it involves a restructure primarily of the base due to the prevalence of horizontal gene transfer in unicellular organisms. This does not overturn phylogenetics, and a cursory glance at the literature would have told you the same thing:
1)Kim, Junhyong and Benjamin A. Salisbury. 2001. A tree obscured by vines: Horizontal gene transfer and the median tree method of estimating species phylogeny. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 6: 571-582.
2)Kurland, C. G., B. Canback and Otto G. Berg (2003) “Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100: 9658-9662. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1632870100v1
gilbo12345 said:
I was asking for a definition because you said fish=fish=still fish showed evolution did not occur, remember?
gilbo12345 said:
Indeed. The fact that you accept the definition of fish you provided means you accept that everything within the group is related. By default you accept that jaws appeared near the base of the group, as well as limb bones in a certain derived group. Limb bones that happen to be found in tetrapods as well.
gilbo12345 said:
The mere fact that you can't see the relevance or the connection I've been making here while other members in the forum can, is highly indicative of your level of understanding of biology and science in general.
australopithecus
Active Member
Gilbo returned and seemingly has ran away again.
Dustnite
New Member
I bet he's over at EFF boasting about his "victory" over those atheists. I swear every thread over there is "I bet evolutionists can't explain this..." while being completely ignored by the world at large then they claim that "silence = victory."
Gilbo has never picked up a biology or an ochem textbook in his life. This assertion is backed by the evidence of his statements. Drink deeply from that Kool Aid gilbo!
Gilbo has never picked up a biology or an ochem textbook in his life. This assertion is backed by the evidence of his statements. Drink deeply from that Kool Aid gilbo!
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Mine is but to serve...
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Prolescum said:
It is amazing that gilbo12345 knows how to use the quote function on that forum. That makes one wonder why he was unable/unwilling to do the same here.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Gitbo12345 said:
I did read what I quoted, and in fact Ron used the term proof, in big shiny fucking capitals and everything. Proof does not occur in science except in the negative form. We cannot say that a given theory is true, only that it is false or not yet proven false.
Semantics deals with what we mean when we say a thing, and is thus the heart of communication. To dismiss a point because 'it's semantics' is therefore the intellectual equivalent of, to employ a favourite football metaphor, diving in the penalty area.
He didn't type a wrong word, he uttered a false fucking statement, in direct response to the correct statement of somebody else.
I'm not your fucking mate, I'm the enemy, and don't forget it.
Several have been given in this very thread, not that you'll acknowledge any of them, because they fail to genuflect before your preposterous masturbation fantasy. Lenski's E. coli experiments are an observation of evolution. The formation of caecal valves in the lizards of Pod Mrcaru are another.
Learn the fucking difference between an assumption and an experimentally validated postulate. I don't have to assume anything because, once again, it has been fucking observed occurring. That evolution occurs is not an assumption, it's an observed fact.
I don't do dodges, unlike your professional evasion of my challenge.
No, but I've seen the modus operandi on the EFF forum, and it's what I predict, quite correctly as it turns out. That's fucking science, not the palsied fucking caricature of it you and your ignorant cronies present.
See me complaining, genius?
Perhaps if the hypothesis was, if the Theory of Evolution is correct, then we would expect to find a transitional fossil in this exact location. We did.[url=http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5485&page=2#entry94723 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
There is also the issue of whether or not he has access to many of the experiments he's asking for. I have my suspicions.
Without an understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is, this will mean nothing to him. He fixates on the tetrapod footprints from Poland, thinking it is an invalidation.
Dave B. said:
Without an understanding of what a transitional fossil actually is, this will mean nothing to him. He fixates on the tetrapod footprints from Poland, thinking it is an invalidation.
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
:?:
Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?
Hackenslash, I see gilbo12345 respondingto a post you made, but I do not see the post from you. Have they already removed it or am I not looking hard enough?
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Dustnite said:
That is what I thought. Thanks.
Frenger said:
That makes four times between the two of us. The fact that he and others cannot see that we agree fossils evolving into others is a bad assumption is representative of their general incapacity. It is the one critical barrier preventing them from understanding phylogenetic, cladistics, etc.
And speaking of which, I forgot to reply to this one particular comment earlier:
gilbo said:
If he means transitions between species, then rather typically he's asking the wrong question, as it would be astronomically dense to assume such high resolution in the fossil record (except in the case of fossil marine foraminifera, where you can quite easily document transition at a species level in a given sequence). However, if he's looking for 20-30 examples of higher taxonomic transitions, then I would point him to the same two whale phylogeny papers I provided in my last response, which will likely go unanswered. With respect to Gatesy et al., and emphasis on Fig. 10, pg. 24, the caption explicitly states it's character based, with representative genera of the relevant families placed in concordance with their shared-derived traits. However, there are more fossil genera that, without cluttering up the tree, would bring the transition to over 20 examples (such as Ichthyolestes, Babiacetus, Protosiren, Artiocetus, Protocetus, Dalanistes, etc).
australopithecus
Active Member
He's exactly as much a scientist as I am a Boeing 747.