FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2003, 09:59 PM   #721
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 6,004
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Justin70
......

Oh my dear lord . . .

I just read all 29 pages of this thread. So who's gonna give me my PH.D?

So, uhm, what have I learned?

<passes out>
I'm with you Justin although i did skip about ten pages - figured I wasn't missing anything.

I have learnt that... no wait, thats not it...

BioBeing is offline  
Old 03-26-2003, 05:45 PM   #722
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
Default

Quote:

Actually the existence of God is the most rational claim for the cause of the universe.
Uh huh. And where, precisly, did the god(s) come from? What created them?

doov
Duvenoy is offline  
Old 03-27-2003, 08:20 AM   #723
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western U.S.A.
Posts: 293
Default

650,000 posts just to get to "infinite regression"?

Oy...
gcameron is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 08:35 PM   #724
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Darwin's Terrier

Originally posted by Ed
It depends on the organism. You look at the fossil record. The gaps in the fossil record help determine where God stepped in to create each group.


olon: That’s very interesting Ed, thanks for the clarification. Under this scheme then, bats are a separaely created kind, for the precursors of bats are pretty well non-existant in the fossil record. And chimps and gorillas are separate, since there’s next-to-no fossils of them either. However, there’s damned good sequences for apes-to-humans, land-animals-to-whales, reptiles-to-mammals and fish-to-reptiles, for instance. So whereabouts are the dividing lines for these, that show where god stepped in to wave his wand?


No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?), there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines. And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers. And I have already dealt with the other transitions you mention earlier in this thread.

Quote:
olon: Say Ed, I’m terribly sorry, I can’t remember your answer after all this time. Please please, could you remind us what the definition of ‘kind’ is again? It’s kinda crucial, if we’re to see if your above claim’s justified, and not the steaming do-dos it appears.

DT
Depending on the organism it is probably either genus or family.
Ed is offline  
Old 03-30-2003, 11:17 PM   #725
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Ed:
No, since we know that Homo "erectus" is actually Homo sapiens (remember the Kow Swamp fossils article?),

I don't see how the Kow Swamp fossils imply that Homo erectus == Homo sapiens. Try looking at the Turkana Boy some time -- his skull is too different from present-day human skulls (no chin, prominent brow ridges, low forehead).

Furthermore, Homo erectus never made tools as fancy as even the earliest Homo sapiens has made. H. erectus made Acheulian-style handaxes and other tools for nearly the whole existence of the species, from ~1.8 m years to ~400,000 years, while even the earliest H. sapiens tools show regional variation.

Also H. erectus did not have much of an artistic muse -- there are no cave paintings that can reasonably be attributed to H. erectus.

there is a huge difference especially in the key area of avg brain size between homo sapiens and Australopithicines.

Such species as H. erectus and H. habilis nicely bridge the gap.

And I think that Ed is working from the work of creationist Lubenow; that would seem apparent from this discussion of Homo erectus.

However, other creationists disagree, as this creationist-evaluation-comparison page shows.

And the so-called transitional "whale" is plainly 100% whale with rear claspers.

How so? Ambulocetus and the like have rather big "claspers".
lpetrich is offline  
Old 03-31-2003, 02:02 AM   #726
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Ed:

Ambulocetus was basically the mammalian eqivalent of a crocodile. From here:
Quote:
One million years after the existence of Pakicetus, a relative named Ambulocetus natans took up life at the seas edge. This species was also covered in fur but was further adapted for aquatic life: it had thick splayed out legs, four toed feet and at hoof at the end of each toe.
If a mammalian crocodile is a "whale with grippers", then I am a gazelle with hands.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 04-02-2003, 08:09 PM   #727
Ed
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nightshade
Speaking of gaps, I think the expression "god of the gaps" would be a more accurate description of your argument.


Hello Nightshade. No, it is called rational explanation of the gaps argument.

Quote:
ns: As DT, pointed out, we do in fact find intermediate forms in the fossil record. If we were having this conversation 10 years ago, you would no doubt argue that the lack of transitional forms between land-dwelling mammals and whales is evidence for creation. The fact that we've found intermediate forms in recent years effectively destroys that view. Pointing at gaps in our knowledge and saying "that's God there" is not only bad science, it's bad theology.
Ambulocetus has hooves, this makes it extremely unlikely it spent any time in the water. Also there is no evidence of a transition from hooves to fins. Therefore it is unlikely to be a transitional form. Just because we hypothesize action by a designer in areas where there are no transitions does not mean we stop looking. All scientific theories are tentative.

Quote:
(woohoo, my very first contribution to the "Ed Thread" )
Congratulations!
Ed is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 03:13 AM   #728
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 5,815
Default

Quote:
Ambulocetus has hooves, this makes it extremely unlikely it spent any time in the water. Also there is no evidence of a transition from hooves to fins. Therefore it is unlikely to be a transitional form. Just because we hypothesize action by a designer in areas where there are no transitions does not mean we stop looking. All scientific theories are tentative.
Ambulocetus had little hooves on its toes, just as modern hippopotami do (hippos are the closest modern land-dwelling relatives of whales). So hippos don't spend any time in the water?

And, yes, their legs gradually become fins in later forms: you obviously know this already, because you mentioned whales with "grippers". So you're lying again.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 03:56 AM   #729
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Default

Ambulocetus natans:





And it having hooves is relevant to where it lived, how? Please explain, then, why the (not closely related) dugongs and manatees have toenails.

I suggest you look into these buggers’ ears. (I’d tell you about them now, but, typically, I took my copy of Carroll’s Patterns and Processes home yesterday after using it on the BBC’s forum )

DT

(Edited for stupid tyop)
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 04-03-2003, 04:43 AM   #730
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
Default

Quote:

Depending on the organism it is probably either genus or family.
Ed my friend, this is preposrerous. You can't have it "Depending on the organism." You can't change the definition of kind as you go from beast to beast, although many creationists seem to do to do exactly that. It ain't science, and I suspect that it ain't good religion, as well. Also, "probably' ain't hittin' on shit either. Not when you're trying to describe a term in such common usage. Is it is, or is it not? And what's the definition of, 'is'?

Surely, bro, you can do better than this.

As for whale evolution, it is well documented. I'd put up a link or two, but I think they've already in this thread.... somewhere..... in the rambling, bewildering streams and sloughs of our conversations.

(sigh)

doov
Duvenoy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.