Daggah

Why don't we use relevant analogies, randman. Can paintings self-reproduce? Do they possess mechanisms in them to provide and generate variation? No? Then how are they analogous to living creatures?

So let's use a similiar analogy. I'm quite sure you haven't read Dawkins. Maybe you should. Borrow a copy of The Blind Watchmaker and have a look at the biomorph program.

Daggah

Furthermore, randman, these "creation" models you talk about - can you please explain to us, sir, how one might go about falsifying them?

Ragnarok

Just wondering though. How do you explain that organisms that are "evolutionarily close" exhibit very similar genetic encodings and those that are "evolutionarily far" exhibit quite different ones? As, for instance, Daggah's corn-rabbit-sunflower example?

This is, fundamentally, no more complex than the old parlor game of "pass the message". You are given a message and told to pass it on. Each person must transmit the message to the next. Because the human memory is faulty we make mistakes and after a few transmissions the message is garbled. In fact, one can come close to determining the "generation" of the message by the degree of distortion. Tell me why it is that we should not apply similar logic to genetic evidence? That is, tell me why it is that organisms that have differing degrees of similarity genetically should not be regarded as differing stages in a process of imperfect transmission of the genetic message from generation to generation.

Daggah

Mock, I've never thought of using quite that analogy. That's a good one, thanks.

randman

Genes pass on information correct. The closer an organism is in similarity, the closer the arrangements and such of the genetic material would be, right?
So why is this inconsistent with the idea of a Creator?
Do you suppose He should have created everything different to satisfy your doubt?

"Furthermore, randman, these "creation" models you talk about - can you please explain to us, sir, how one might go about falsifying them"

I refered to creationist models in the context of quoting an evolutionist who admitted the fossil record is consistent with "special creation" as well, and it is a general reference. The model is any model with a Creator as the originator of life. What you are doing is dodging the issue while trying to play word games.
Why not explain the quotes? You can't since you want to be able to deceive. It could be that evolutiuon is true, but that is not enough. You don't want to tolerate any dissent so you exagerrate and overstate your case, and then denigrate anyone who speaks of kinds, special creaiton, etc,..all the while knowingly avoiding the clear substance of what they are saying. This tells me that something is deeply flawed with your defense of evolution. It is treated more like a religion to many of you than anything resembling science.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Kosh

He doesn't have a clue. Also note that he's now
progressed from consipiracy theories to paranoia.
Can psycosis be far off?

randman

Hey, ya'll are the ones that won't answer the quotes I linked, and who then have the gall to lock down my posts when I show where the much-vaunted walking whale was not considered one.
The funny thing is I am outnumbered 20 or more to 1, and yet ya'll won't even anser a few basic questions.
Which is it? Land-based animal, or walking whale?
Why do you keep dodging my posts?
I answered your idiotic calling me out in an area that I never made any assertions about yet you can't answer the simplest ideas.

Daggah

One could assume so for functional DNA, but there's no reason to assume this for non-functional DNA. Speaking of which, why have non-functional DNA in the first place?

Uh oh... could it be? Could he be on the verge of losing the debate right here?

Oops! The dreaded "god did it" explanation! Under the last of my 3 rules, I contend that you have now lost this debate.

Since when do scientific models and theories consist purely of quoting opposing viewpoints?

So, in other words, it's not a model at all. It's not a theory at all. It's dogma that doesn't do shit to explain anything about our world.

Scientific theories are falsifiable. If your creation model isn't falsifiable, then it is not a model. This is not a dodge of the issue; it's not a word game. It's a simple fact that you're not handling this scientific issue in a manner consistent with a scientific approach.

Why not? What do the quotes have to do with THIS issue? What do they have to do with biochemical and genetic evidence for common descent? This is a red herring. And speaking of deception, why are you accusing ME of this when you are the one taking quotes out of context, as shown in other threads? Why are you passing off 15-year old, 20-year old, and even 50-year old quotes as if they are evidence against evolution? Does this seem like an honest debating tactic to you? I am presenting you with clear, hard evidence of evolution, and you still want to argue over old quotes taken out of context. I maintain that it is not MY honesty here that is in question.

I'm not overstating my case at all. It's really quite simple: we are seeing EXACTLY what we would EXPECT to see if evolution were true! This is evolution's explanatory power. And let's take your argument further. What does it say about creationism when I see that there is a rampant amount of dishonesty, hoaxes, lies, intentional misquoting, and general bad science abundant in every creationist movement I've yet encountered? Evolutionary theory is based on hard evidence, not faith. Religion is based on faith, and not hard evidence. Science is based on hard evidence, not faith. Evolution is more like science than it is religion.

I don't think you have any room to accuse me of dodging the issue here, when I've taken the time to provide you with direct evidence of evolution, and instead of analyzing it closely, you talk about issues raised in other threads and make vague accusations. Furthermore, the first part of this post talks about god, and, like I said before, you have therefore lost this debate. You're a pathetic little troll and nothing more.

Daggah

Damn you, damn IT! We HAVE answered your quotes. We HAVE shown what's wrong with them: they're out of date and out of context. You have ignored this REPEATEDLY.

Your posts have NOT been locked down. They have been MOVED.

This is an utter LIE.

Why do you think you have the room to make this accusation in a thread that has NOTHING to do with this?

You have answered NOTHING.

randman

"We HAVE shown what's wrong with them: they're out of date and out of context. You have ignored this REPEATEDLY."

Saying they are out of context is not the same as explaining how they are supposedly out of context. As far as when they were made, 3 things.
1. What good would it do to find recent quotes of the same thing when you deny the first quotes clear and obvious meanings?
2. If the quotes are out of date, then that would at least give us a reference for limiting material to be discussed on this issue to more recent discoveries, but seeing as how much of what is called transitional was discovered prior to this date, it has extreme relevance.
3. I think you are being dingenious in your condemnation. You know full well that neither you nor anyone else has explained what these specific quotes mean. Even if they were out of date, they would still have relevance in showing the evolutionist claims for decades were wrong.