pz

Mary.

Is this trip all-expenses-paid?

Duvenoy

DRAT!! Got here too late! Story of my life.

And I SO wanted a free trip to Dr. Dyno's site (sigh).

doov

Oolon Colluphid

Ah, go on then. The websites are on me!

<a href="http://www.drdino.com" target="_blank">www.drdino.com</a>

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org" target="_blank">www.answersingenesis.org</a>

Enjoy your trip (but make sure to fasten your seatbelts... and keep a sickbag handy, it could be a bumpy ride!)

Oolon

Duvenoy

I thankee most kindly, Oolon!

Now, I'm off for the adventure of a of a lifetime; an exploration of Dr.(gag) Hovind's Land of Imagination (Disney should hire him as at least a consultant).



doov

Ed

No, that they were created using similar design from a single designer.

Quote:

Ed: A better example may be the sailfish and the swordfish, their skeletons are very similar and yet they are totally unrelated. lp: Ed, how is that conclusion arrived at?

It is a taxonomic fact, talk to your local ichthyologist.

Quote:

OC: Well duh. Uhhh, it may surprise you to learn that humans are members of the Synapsida. Also of the Therapsida, Mammalia, Eutheria, Primates and Catarrhini. Ed: No, the first two are reptile families. Humans are not reptiles. lp: In what way are they "reptile families"? Because their earlier members had lots of reptilian features? And Synapsida and Therapsida are bigger taxa than Linnaean families.

Yes.

Quote:

Ed: No, you have failed to demonstrate that we are living representatives of an extinct reptile. For one we are classified as mammals not reptiles or even mammallike reptiles. lp: Ed, Ed, Ed, splitting hairs over classification does not prove one thing. "Reptilia" is a paraphyletic group.

But it is a contradiction of terms to place a mammal in Reptilia. If that was the case then a freshman biology major could put anything in Reptilia and still get an A+.

Quote:

OC: So they know it’s nonsense really, but want to keep their jobs. It’s all a cover-up. So do please share your vast palaeontological expertise with us, O Ed. Explain why the therapsids are not exactly what evolution predicts. Ed: No, they dont think its nonsense, even I dont think it is nonsense, it is just strong desire to not be accountable for how you spend your time backed by some evidence that appears to point in that direction. It is usually subconscious, because their whole lifestyle is impacted by it not just their career. lp: Ed, be specific about your allegations. Otherwise, we may have to conclude not only that they are totally baseless, but that you are manufacturing them to distract us from your lack of a case.

I heard my fellow graduate students and professors in biology talk and I know how they justify their life. It is often thru their work.

Quote:

Ed: Also embryological recapitulation is no longer considered valid. OC: Bwahahaha! Ooh, what a revelation! But are you claiming that you can tell a six-week old human embryo apart from the equivalent stage embryo of a rabbit and chick? I’ll find some pics if you’d like to try. Ed: I am not an embryologist, but I am sure an embryologist could quite easily tell them apart. lp: Easily only if one knows exactly what to look for.

So what? The early stages of the construction of different types of houses also look alike especially if their is an indivdual designer.


[b][quote}
Ed:
The problem is evolution tends to become unfalsifiable. Even though there is no empirical evidence for the macro version of it.

lp: And the hypothesis of special creation is completely falsifiable, right?

And what would you consider empirical evidence, O Ed? Following the generations back with a time machine? If the God you believe in decided to grab you and take you back in time so as to show you the generations, would you consider that to be evidence of evolution?

</strong>[/QUOTE]

Creation is falsifiable, finding no evidence of design and multidinous transition forms gradually changing forms.

lpetrich

However, the variety of life and the abundance of ecosystem conflicts suggests multiple designers -- if any designers had been responsible.

And there is an abundance of features that look suspiciously like the result of descent with modification.

Ed, explain human-embryo gill bars and gill pouches. And embryonic blood circulation: heart -&gt; ventral aorta -&gt; aortic arches that parallel the gill bars -&gt; two dorsal aortas that meet toward the rear. This very fishlike arrangement gets rearranged into human form by deleting some of the aortic arches and cutting the dorsal aortas.

And don't get me started on all the oodles of molecular evidence -- gene divergence that looks like a random walk, pseudogenes, transposons, why we and mice have so many genes in common, ...

Tell me where to look.

HOW is it a contradiction in terms? To me, that's like saying that Ed could not be the son of his supposed father because Ed is distinct from that gentleman.

Ed, BE SPECIFIC.

But why create mammal embryos with a yolk sac and vitelline blood vessels?

And that seems extremely unimaginative -- making their embryos look so similar. Why not extend one's creativity from adult forms to embryos?

Ed

I cannot cover all of those examples you give that you think are poor design, why dont you pick out the best and I will explain them. Though in many cases what some think is poor design is the designer's signature so that we will know that there is only one designer, just like an artist will make his work unique and have little quirks in it. I have already dealt with the timescales in a previous post.

Ed

An organism that shares approximately 50% of each of the characteristics of two families or genera of organisms.

Quote:

Ed: So ancient humans may have been more variable than the species you mention like domestic dogs. lp: Any good reason to suppose that to be the case, other than taking taxonomic nomenclature too literally?

Because the greatest variability between both different varieties of dogs is in their skulls and body size, just like the variability between different varieties of humans. This shows that both species have similar patterns of variability within one species and demonstrates that such variability is not that unusual.

Quote:

Ed: Because we know from living in the computer age that only a mind can develop an adaptable system or programmed system. lp: And how is that supposed to be the case? Ed: Because that is the only way they have come into existence that we know about. lp: That Ed knows about, but Ed ought to look at simulated-evolution experiments, as with software like "Tierra". They are rather far from creating full-scale minds, but they have produced a lot of very interesting complexity.

Those experiments assume what you are trying to prove, ie that macroevolution occurs.


[b] Where?

Ed

But where did the time travelers come from before they put the first organisms here?


[b] Another helpful criteria to determine what the "kinds" were is to look at where the gaps are in the fossil record.

lpetrich

They could have created a closed causal loop, ensuring that they exist by going back in time to make it happen.