More trouble for Common Decent and The Nested Hierarchy .
All-Seeing-I
phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
Why?
Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
discovered. THAT'S why.
It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
life when they variate.
gregwrld
More evidence you don't know how
science works. And more evidence
you know nothing about evolution.
Humans are fish "kind" and reptile
"kind" and Mammal "kind" and ape
"kind". Common descent! Reproduction
works...
Now tell us how a god just poofs up
living things. How does that work?
gregwrld
Iain
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
That's not the notion.
The notion is that all fossilized species yet found conform to said
tree.
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
True. And not contrary to any scientifically established theory.
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge.
Yes it does, because, many fossils have been found (and it was you who
has just now introduced the idea that the number of fossils is
important).
> Species
> do not cross boundaries.
Speciation IS itself the formation of a reproductive boundary.
Brilliant. Everything you come up with is just that extra bit twisted.
It's like 3D nonsense.
> They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
What kinds? Explain yourself.
I'll put the kettle on.
--Iain
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:59634cc1-920c-46a0...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
.
Dan Listermann
"gregwrld" <GCze...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:62ff138d-f5f4-40c3...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> Now tell us how a god just poofs up
> living things. How does that work?
>
It is a process called "goddidit." and you wouldn't understand it.
.
Ye Old One
Wrong, as usual.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Greg G.
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
or anything.
>
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
Iain
> > Species
> > do not cross boundaries.
That's like saying "countries do not cross boundaries". I mean, I defy
anyone not to be made speechless by this. I couldn't make it up.
--Iain
Uncle Arnold
>> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
>> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
>> life when they variate.
It just don't look good for the notion that languages diverge. Languages
stay within their respective "kinds" of language when they variate. Thus
Latin did not give rise to French. Or, if it did, then they're both the same
"kind" of language. Great.
Variate. *Jeeezus*...
A.
Iain
> On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
Yes, and for as long as we only have a finite number of fossils
(albeit millions), we'll never know if we have them all. I suppose for
that reason we should abandon the whole field. Good thing evolutionary
biologists have Allseeing to set them straight.
--Iain
Dana Tweedy
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
It doesn't have to be "provable". All it has to do is fit current
predictions.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
Doesn't follow. All fossilized animals will never be found, but so far
none have not conformed to the current tree of life. Until such happens,
(and it's very unlikely) the current theory holds.
>
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge.
Divergence has been directly observed. That's about as "good" as it gets.
> Species
> do not cross boundaries.
There are no "boundries" to cross. Populations change over time.
> They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
There is only one 'kind" of life. Can you give any reason why they can't
"variate" into a new species?
DJT
chris thompson
First, let me say that this is worse than usual.
Second, even if we found fossils of every animal (and plant, and
fungus, and everything else that ever lived) that notion would STILL
be unprovable- because science does not prove anything.
Finally, your notion of "divergence" is and always has been silly and
wrong. You've latched onto that word as though it meant something, and
the way you use it, it is gobbleydegook. There is no such thing as a
"kind" and the boundaries you seem to think exist, do not.
Chris
All-seeing-I
First. You know nothing about my religion. Second. I am quite capable
of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice. Primarily because
i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
But, not as much as i loathe a dishonest pop media for spreading lies
for the same reason.
The last bastion for truth was science. But now a days even that seems
to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
entitled "The case for Speciation.
chris thompson
Is there some kind of software package you can get that serves as a
language mangler? Or is he channeling William Spooner?
Chris
gregwrld
> "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
Har! I'm willing to try, though. I just
want some details (you know, those
things the devil is supposed to reside
in).
gregwrld
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
> > abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> > or anything.
>
> > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > life when they variate.
>
> > Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> > phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> > diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> > The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> > to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> > so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> First. You know nothing about my religion
I suggest that the content of your posts tells us rather a lot about
your religion.
> Second. I am quite capable
> of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice.
I suggest that the content of your posts demonstrates that this is a
falsehood even if you believe it to be true.
> Primarily because
> i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
> But, not as much as i loathe a dishonest pop media for spreading lies
> for the same reason.
So why do you prefer to believe the purveyors of pseudo-academic books
rather than taking the time to educate yourself in the subjects they
write about?
>
> The last bastion for truth was science.
Science never claimed to offer truth, as has been explained to you
over and over again. What do you think it tells us about your
religious beliefs that you stick dogmatically to your distorted view
of science rather than bothering to learn anything about it?
> But now a days even that seems
> to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
How can you know? You are profoundly ignorant of science and have
demonstrated a blank refusal to learn anything about it?
>
> I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
> entitled "The case for Speciation.
No, you make yet again a public display of your profound ignorance of
the science of biology. You confuse taxonomic ranks, you ignore the
fact that speciation events have been observed both in nature and in
the laboratory, and accuse generations of scientists of a dishonest
conspiracy without a shred of evidence to support such an assertion.
Evidently your religion demands ignorance, arrogance, a dogmatic
refusal to learn and the denigration of those who try to educate you.
RF
John Harshman
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
Again, every time you say "because", or "therefore" or "so", it's
followed by a non sequitur. We don't need all fossilized animals to put
the ones we do have into a phylogenetic tree. Why should we?
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
Do you have any evidence for these claims?
John Stockwell
All of the species that have been discovered fit the nested hierarchy..
RAM
You are by far of all posters there are in TO the most bonehead,
blissfully ignorant fool of scientific methods and strategies as well
as what data are needed to document hypotheses and theories. Yes you
do "not understand" that not only do we not even have a random
distribution of found fossils nor will be ever find have more than a
very limited number of any species but that is not the only or always
the most critical data for understanding and documenting speciation.
Your willful ignorance is highlighted by the fact very few fools have
proffered the lack of "finding all fossilized animals" as a reason for
sciences failure to document speciation. Even for contemporary
speciation events all or even most animals are not needed to document
speciation.
Go troll at "alt.fools.no.understand.sci".
Dan Listermann
manner of problems evidently.
.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
OK. Show me wrong by listing the steps fish took to become man with
evidence.
All-Seeing-I
You are a liar.
Finding a new fossil species may cause a shift of other species on the
tree.(or bush --You people cannot make up your minds which story you
want to use.)
Posibly even change an entire branch causing a domino effect.
You know it. Why deny it
chris thompson
Why? We see you're wrong without that silly straw man.
Chris
Boikat
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
It sounds like your spouting from a possition of ignorance again.
>
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge.
Why not? Divergence explains the patterns observed in the fossil
record we *have* discovered.
> Species
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
Please stop trying to think. You're only damaging your brain.
Boikat
Caranx latus
Hey look! A request for evidence! Shouldn't you be doing your own homework?
Boikat
That's been presented to you before. Either you're too much of a lack-
wit to understand it, or you ignored it. Either way, you demonstrate
dishonesty by demanding it be presented again.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 1:26锟絧m, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 11:51 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > life when they variate.
>
> > You are by far of all posters there are in TO the most bonehead,
> > blissfully ignorant fool of scientific methods and strategies as well
> > do "not understand" that not only do we not even have a random
> > distribution of found fossils nor will be ever find have more than a
> > very limited number of any species but that is not the only or always
> > the most critical data for understanding and documenting speciation.
> > Your willful ignorance is highlighted by the fact very few fools have
> > proffered the lack of "finding all fossilized animals" as a reason for
> > speciation events all or even most animals are not needed to document
> > speciation.
>
> > Go troll at "alt.fools.no.understand.sci".
>
> You are a liar.
Actually, you are ignorant.
>
> Finding a new fossil species may cause a shift of other species on the
> tree.(or bush --You people cannot make up your minds which story you
> want to use.)
>
> Posibly even change an entire branch causing a domino effect.
>
> You know it. Why deny it-
Nobody with an understanding of the ToE or the fossil record would
deny that new discoveries that effect the arrangement of the "tree"
would be adjusted if the evidence merits a change iin relationships,
*however*, some lineages are so well supported that the chances of any
rearrangement is not likely. Horses, for example, will not suddenly
have to be shifted into the group containing Varnid lizards. Humans
will not end up being shifted outside the lineage of Great Apes.
You may fantasize that some monumental discovery may be found in the
future. I hope you don't plan on seeing that any time soon, however.
Boikat
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> The last bastion for truth was science. But now a days even that seems
> to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
You seem to think that the agendas and lies are a bad thing. Why, then,
are you yourself one of the principle agents (*the* main one, in this
newsgroup) acting to fill science with agendas and lies?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Frank J
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
50 years ago anti-evolution actvists were certain that common descent
was untrue. Now the most sophisticated anti-evolution arguments either
concede the possibility of CD, or grudgingly admit that it's true. So
if it's as simple as you claim, what the heck are you doing *here*
when you can be at Uncommon Descent saving the DI millions of their
hard earned money???
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
> > abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> > or anything.
>
> > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > life when they variate.
>
> > Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> > phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> > diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> > The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> > to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> > so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> First. You know nothing about my religion. Second. I am quite capable
> of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice.
Bullocks! The very fact that you stated that it's easier to believe
"Goddidit" because it takes too much effort to understand the ToE,
shows that you are *not* capable of analyzing *anything*, because that
takes effort.
> Primarily because
> i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
> But, not as much as i loathe a dishonest pop media for spreading lies
> for the same reason.
The "pop media" is one thing, science is another.
>
> The last bastion for truth was science. But now a days even that seems
> to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
And religion, even your personal fantasy religion, isn't?
>
> I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
> entitled "The case for Speciation.
And only demonstrate your willful ignorance and disdain for real
science.
Boikat
Burkhard
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
And we can never be sure that all fragments of the bible have been
discovered either Tomorrow, an excavation in Palestine could find a
letter to Matthew from Jesus along the lines: Dear Mat, the trick
with the opium worked splendidly, they took me off just a smidgen away
from death, and after the effects wore off, I escaped from the tomb
as planned - boy that stone gave me some trouble, still feeling the
after effects of the stuff you gave me. Some folks saw me, gave them a
bit of a fright, but can't be helped. I tried to calm them down and
explain things, but my head was still befuddled so don't know if it
made much sense. Told them i was off to hide at dad's, I think. Now
off to Bethlehem to raise an army there. Romans go home!! yours in
the struggle, comrade Jesus.
Just as possible, just not a good idea to form theories on the basis
of evidence you just _might_ find but didn't so far
Glenn
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
So you meant the title to read "More trouble for Common Decency and
The Nested Hierarchy".
Greg G.
> On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
> > abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> > or anything.
>
> > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > life when they variate.
>
> > Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> > phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> > diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> > The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> > to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> > so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> First. You know nothing about my religion.
Ignorance is bliss has never been more true.
> Second. I am quite capable
> of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice.
You recognize that classifying creatures according to physical
attributes results in a consistent nested heirarchy, whether
morphology, DNA (active or junk), ERVs, or even the fossil record is
used, yet you refuse to put humans with apes without giving a valid
reason. That betrays religious prejudice.
> Primarily because
> i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
> But, not as much as i loathe a dishonest pop media for spreading lies
> for the same reason.
Organized religion also manipulates people's fear and emotions for
their own benefit as well.
>
> The last bastion for truth was science.
Humans are prone to mental errors and to misperceptions. Logic
provides a system to identify and correct the mental errors. Science
is a method of correcting our misperceptions and expanding our sensory
inputs which enables us to produce new ideas, then test and eliminate
the incorrect ideas.
> But now a days even that seems
> to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
But the agendas eliminate the lies.
>
> I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
> entitled "The case for Speciation.
Why don't you do one on electricity is bunk next.
Robert Camp
> On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
>> phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
>> diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
>> The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
>> to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
>> so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> First. You know nothing about my religion.
Nonsense. I can tell you all about your religion. There's nothing
cryptic about you at all.
You are afraid of expertise. You are intimidated by education. You want
desperately to be respected for your proficiency, but have developed no
particular skill to the level at which such admiration is forthcoming.
On the other hand, you have an interest in fables and legends (Biblical
and otherwise). You have invested some effort in becoming familiar with
them, and they feel comfortable to you. When you wrap yourself in them
you feel as if there is something you know that others don't, as if you
have an aptitude of note. As such, these stories have become real and
powerful to you.
The upshot of this - your bitter resentment of verifiable, empirical
knowledge along with your conversance with folk traditions - is that
you have created your own personal Truth: a mix and match of
conventional and obscure mythology. It is a religion for which you are
the only cleric, making it impossible for you to be wrong and leaving
you free to puff your chest endlessly and ostentatiously.
Unfortunately, sincere introspection appears to be a lesson missing
from your catechism, since you seem to be the only one not to
understand how foolish you appear.
RLC
Kermit
Damn. Robert, I wish I'd said that.
Kermit
Iain
> OK. Show me wrong by listing the steps fish took to become man
The smallest step here would be a single generation (father-son), but
as this spans 400 million years...
Fish, amphibious fish, reptiles, mammal-like reptile(early synapsids),
rodents, weird plesiadapis-era primates, homo-like primates....Note
that these are not true 'steps', but general phases which blend into
eachother.
> with
> evidence.
Follow the fossils.
--Iain
Tim DeLaney
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
Indeed, you are correct in asserting that the nested hierarchy proves
nothing. Fortunately, science is not in the business of proving
anything. Observations, however numerous, do not "prove" anything.
Proofs are the province of logicians and mathematicians.
For example, we could examine any number of mammals to see
whether they possess lungs, but no matter how many specimens we
might dissect, we can never disprove the existence of a lungless
mammal. However improbable, it's remotely possible that some
mammalian species has evolved gills, and discarded lungs.
But don't hold your breath. :-)
Tim
Kermit
It's going to take more than you have patience for, I fear. I suggest
"Your Inner Fish" by Shubin. It is readable and accessible. Check it
out from the library if you don't want to shell out the money (it's in
paperback).
But you have been corrected - without effect - on all your various
strawmen. You give no indication of understanding the simplest
concepts. The most important one - self evaluation - you show no
enthusiasm for. You deny all evidence when you think it threatens your
fantasies. What evidence could we show you that you wouldn't simply
dismiss, as you have done in this very thread? What simple ideas could
we present, that you wouldn't hopelessly misunderstand, as you have in
the OP?
Kermit
John Harshman
Greg G.
He sounds like Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs.
Robert Camp
Probably only good manners and civility stopping you. Sometimes I get
so fed up with the arrogance of some of these guys that I get personal.
In the case of madman, however, I don't feel too bad since he has made
his intentional ignorance a profound part of nearly everything he posts.
Devils Advocaat
> On Dec 28, 1:10�pm, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> > "gregwrld" <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:62ff138d-f5f4-40c3...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > living things. How does that work?
>
> > It is a process called "goddidit." and you wouldn't understand it.
>
> > .
>
> Har! I'm willing to try, though. I just
> want some details (you know, those
> things the devil is supposed to reside
> in).
I wish people wouldn't keep claiming I reside in the details, I live
in a nice little one bedroom flat. :P
>
> gregwrld
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
>phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
>Why?
>
>Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
>discovered. THAT'S why.
?? irrelevant. we have never discovered everything in every science.
>
>It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
>do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
>life when they variate.
no one knows what a 'kind' is. and speciation is observed.
creationism? still hoping to find angels doing stuff. after 2000
years. no evidence at all.
none.
bpuharic
which is hardly proof that speciation doesnt happen
and where can we see the angels that creationism says exists? 2000
years. no angels
>
>Posibly even change an entire branch causing a domino effect.
>
>You know it. Why deny it
you know it. why deny it? creationism is useless
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>First. You know nothing about my religion.
neither do you.
Second. I am quite capable
>of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice
since you analyze EVERYTHING based on your religion, such a statement
is fatuous.
.. Primarily because
>i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
and you manipulate religion for political reasons.
>
>I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
>entitled "The case for Speciation.
>
and creationism? 2000 years. not a single shred of evidence. anywhere.
>
1zc
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
\f
>
>OK. Show me wrong by listing the steps fish took to become man with
>evidence.
OK here you go:
theory.....prediction....test....evidence...\\\\
theory: natural selection
prediction: leads to descent with modification
test: lab tests showing populations change with exposure to different
environments
data: evidence of descent with modification
that's how science works
so...tell us, creationist....where's the evidence for creationism?
>
Stuart
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
That is just plain silly. However, this line of argumentation is a
favorite
of our creationist incubi. Basically, it states that since we don't
know everything
we can't come to firm conclusions about anything.
Could you possibly be more intellectually sterile than you already
are?
Stuart
chris thompson
I have suggested the article in Natural History (it's an abridged form
of the book, available from:
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/04971/fish-out-of-water
for free) and ASI has run from it every single time. You see, it shows
him that his demand that he be shown an organism that has evolved to
be nothing like its ancestor is totally fallacious.
Nothing evolves to be nothing like its ancestors. That's why we (males
at least) get hernias- because our testes start high up in our body
where a fish keeps them, but then have to descend through the body
wall and hang outside. That leaves a weak spot in the abdominal
cavity, where things like a stray loop on intestine can slip through,
if you strain in just the wrong manner.
It's why we suffer from sleep apnea. Our larynx and the walls of our
throat have to be flexible to produce speech. But that same
flexibility sometimes results in sleep apnea, when the walls collapse
to the point of blocking air flow.
There's a few other things mentioned in the article, and a lot more in
the book, but he won't even consider looking at it- it would be too
distressing.
Chris
Eric Root
> The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> Why?
>
> Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> life when they variate.
Sorry, it is dishonest to name your thread "More trouble" as though
some previous post of yours constituted trouble. If you ever post
anything and we explain why it isn't trouble. it stands as cancelled,
and your calling a subsequent thread "more trouble" is a lie. A wise
person would try to work on that for the new year.
Eric Root
Dan Listermann
"bpuharic" <wf...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2v0kj5doe4ng4iijj...@4ax.com...
No, it is used to vandalize real knowledge to better control weak minds.
.
Eric Root
> On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> or anything.
>
>
>
> > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > life when they variate.
>
> phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
Don't necessarily blame his religion; I'm am starting to think that
it is more a case of his religion and his inability to understand
logic or properly weight arguments arising from a causal "common
ancestor." Something is preventing a maturation in his brain from the
concrete thinking to the abstract thinking stage.
Could be something as biological as disrupted timing across the corpus
callosum, or similar.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
> > abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> > or anything.
>
> > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > life when they variate.
>
> > Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> > phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> > diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> > The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> > to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> > so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice. Primarily because
> i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
> for the same reason.
>
> to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
>
But we have seen that you don't have the mental horsepower (or perhaps
organization) to be the judge of when or where such agendas and lies
might be. Look at how consistently wrong you are in almost every
discussion here. Look at how you start this thread imagining that a
single piece of evidence has the power to throw out all the previous
thousands of pieces of evidence. That is only possible if we
charitably imagine that you aren't playing with a full deck.
> I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
> entitled "The case for Speciation.
And you are shown to be wrong there, also.
Eric Root
Eric Root
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 6:52�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:14�pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > > All known fossilized species do conform to the phylogenetic tree.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > > As soon as one is found that overturns the phylogenetic tree, we will
> > > abandon that notion. It's not like we are emotionally attached to it
> > > or anything.
>
> > > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > > life when they variate.
>
> > > Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> > > phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> > > diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> > > The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> > > to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> > > so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> > First. You know nothing about my religion
>
> your religion.
>
> > Second. I am quite capable
> > of analyzing the facts without religious prejudice.
>
> falsehood even if you believe it to be true.
>
> > Primarily because
> > i loathe organized religions for manipulating the truth for a buck.
> > But, not as much as i loathe a dishonest pop media for spreading lies
> > for the same reason.
>
> rather than taking the time to educate yourself in the subjects they
> write about?
>
>
>
> > The last bastion for truth was science.
>
> over and over again. What do you think it tells us about your
> religious beliefs that you stick dogmatically to your distorted view
> of science rather than bothering to learn anything about it?
>
> > But now a days even that seems
> > to be filled with agendas and lies as well.
>
> demonstrated a blank refusal to learn anything about it?
>
>
>
> > I address why speciation divergence is bunk in the next thread
> > entitled "The case for Speciation.
>
> the science of biology. You confuse taxonomic ranks, you ignore the
> fact that speciation events have been observed both in nature and in
> the laboratory, and accuse generations of scientists of a dishonest
> conspiracy without a shred of evidence to support such an assertion.
>
> Evidently your religion demands ignorance, arrogance, a dogmatic
> refusal to learn and the denigration of those who try to educate you.
>
> RF
His religion does not demand that; it's his disordered brain that
malforms the ideation in his religious, scientific, and political
opinions.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On 2009-12-28 10:52:05 -0800, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> said:
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:14 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 28, 12:51 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> Since millions of fossils have been found that don't overturn the
> >> phylogenetic tree, it looks pretty good for the notion that species
> >> diverge and absolutely dismal for the notion that they do not diverge.
> >> The fact that we have observed species divergence makes it ridiculous
> >> to maintain that it doesn't happen. Since your religion has kept you
> >> so in error on this subject, you should reevaluate your religion.
>
> > First. You know nothing about my religion.
>
> Nonsense. I can tell you all about your religion. There's nothing
> cryptic about you at all.
>
> You are afraid of expertise. You are intimidated by education. You want
> desperately to be respected for your proficiency, but have developed no
> particular skill to the level at which such admiration is forthcoming.
>
He's yet another of these anti-intellectual jerks that would never in
a million years try to claim strong people can't lift more weight than
weak ones can, but will blithely tell you to your face that a smart
personb is no better at working with ideas or understanding things
than a person who is not particularly intellitgent.
(snip_
>
> The upshot of this - your bitter resentment of verifiable, empirical
> knowledge along with your conversance with folk traditions - is that
> you have created your own personal Truth: a mix and match of
> conventional and obscure mythology. It is a religion for which you are
> the only cleric, making it impossible for you to be wrong and leaving
> you free to puff your chest endlessly and ostentatiously.
>
Bull'seye!
> Unfortunately, sincere introspection appears to be a lesson missing
> from your catechism, since you seem to be the only one not to
> understand how foolish you appear.
>
> RLC
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
Sure. I'm different from my parents. But i am not biologicaly
different from a man walking the earth say, 4000 years ago either.
You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
can eventually become a man in time
Pure science fiction dude.
Caranx latus
Yes, you are. You may not be *significantly* different, but you are
different from every other human that exists or has ever existed.
Perhaps "biologicaly [sic] different" means something different to you
than it does to other people.
<snip>
Boikat
Nobody said you would be. How about 4,000,000, though?
>
> You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
> can eventually become a man in time
Nothing "kooky" about it. It's supported by several indipendant lines
of evidence, which you cannot grasp, because it takes too much effort.
>
> Pure science fiction dude.
That would be your "aliens screwed with proto-human DNA" claims.
*That* is science fiction.
Boikat
Ye Old One
Well, yes, you are. because you the accumulated genetic changes your
line of descent have given you.
>
>You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
>can eventually become a man in time
Yes, that is what all the evidence says.
>
>Pure science fiction dude.
>
--
Bob.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
gregwrld
So you're not "a man of wealth
and taste"?
>
>
>
> > gregwrld
chris thompson
This boggles the mind.
You ARE different from your parents, but you are NOT different from
someone who lived 4000 years ago?
Amazing.
> You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
> can eventually become a man in time
>
> Pure science fiction dude.
I notice that you have never once addressed the evidence that's been
presented to you, time after time after time, ad nauseum, that shows
that structures present in fish- like gonads- evolved into the same or
similar structures (gonads, in this case) in humans.
Not only that, we suffer the consequences of a fish-like pattern of
development. Your balls form high in your body (just like a fish) and
then must descend into the scrotum, because sperm don't develop
properly at 37C. That leaves a weak point in the body wall, and that
leads to hernias in men.
All because we have fish balls.
You get the hiccups because you inherited a patch of brain cells from
amphibians, you know. They work great in tadpoles, but since you
converted your gill arches into your larynx and some other stuff, you
don't need those brain cells to do the same stuff they do in tadpoles.
But tough noogies, cause they're there. (Tadpoles use them to
transition between lung-breathing and gill-breathing.)
Chris
I AM
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:31�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > Sure. I'm different from my parents. But i am not biologicaly
> > different from a man walking the earth say, 4000 years ago either.
>
> This boggles the mind.
>
> You ARE different from your parents, but you are NOT different from
> someone who lived 4000 years ago?
>
> Amazing.
What constitutes the difference between a human today and a human
4,000 years ago then einstein?
teresita
> What constitutes the difference between a human today and a human 4,000
> years ago then einstein?
Bigger head. Up to 24% of births in the State of New York were by
caesarian. We are burning our bridges on our way to looking like aliens
from Close Encounters...pretty soon all our births will need to be by
caesarian section.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
All-seeing-I
The only thing that is mind boggling Chrissy is you thinking mankind
has diverged one tiny bit from what we were thousands of years ago.
We may not be exactly alike. But we are all the same. Always have
been. Always will be.
>
> Amazing.
>
> > You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
> > can eventually become a man in time
>
> > Pure science fiction dude.
>
> I notice that you have never once addressed the evidence that's been
> presented to you, time after time after time, ad nauseum, that shows
> that structures present in fish- like gonads- evolved into the same or
> similar structures (gonads, in this case) in humans.
>
> Not only that, we suffer the consequences of a fish-like pattern of
> development. Your balls form high in your body (just like a fish) and
> then must descend into the scrotum, because sperm don't develop
> properly at 37C. That leaves a weak point in the body wall, and that
> leads to hernias in men.
>
> All because we have fish balls.
So we are fish because we have BALLS?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
MeGA BYTES of laughter.!!!!
You own me a new keyboard damn it!
> You get the hiccups because you inherited a patch of brain cells from
> amphibians, you know. They work great in tadpoles, but since you
> converted your gill arches into your larynx and some other stuff, you
> don't need those brain cells to do the same stuff they do in tadpoles.
> But tough noogies, cause they're there. (Tadpoles use them to
> transition between lung-breathing and gill-breathing.)
HA! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
So we are fish because of BALLS and HICCUPS? !!
Giggle to PLUTO and back!!
You should do stand up Chris.
Do a routine based on fish that magically changed into humans that
flew to the moon. All because they held their BALLS really tight,
which of course produced the hiccups!
It will be a hit
I'll invest. But I want a cut.
The ticket sales in the first year should be millions!
All-seeing-I
What you see happening is all of the hormones, chemicals, pesticides
and other assorted garbage in our foods effecting mankind. Obviously
it will take a while for the vagina to catch up!
hahah!!!
Of course the 24% does not include all of the woman that have a c-
section by choice.
No.
chris thompson
What makes you think there have been no genetic changes in 4000 years?
And why pick 4000 years? Is there anything special about that time?
Chris
chris thompson
Except maybe you.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
> MeGA BYTES of laughter.!!!!
>
> You own me a new keyboard damn it!
>
> > You get the hiccups because you inherited a patch of brain cells from
> > amphibians, you know. They work great in tadpoles, but since you
> > converted your gill arches into your larynx and some other stuff, you
> > don't need those brain cells to do the same stuff they do in tadpoles.
> > But tough noogies, cause they're there. (Tadpoles use them to
> > transition between lung-breathing and gill-breathing.)
>
> HA! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> So we are fish because of BALLS and HICCUPS? !!
>
> Giggle to PLUTO and back!!
>
> You should do stand up Chris.
>
> Do a routine based on fish that magically changed into humans that
> flew to the moon. All because they held their BALLS really tight,
> which of course produced the hiccups!
>
> It will be a hit
>
> I'll invest. But I want a cut.
>
> The ticket sales in the first year should be millions!
Why are you so scared?
Chris
Kermit
My daughter already has a big head...
Kermit
Boikat
It appears that at the moment, he's either high of crack or drunk off
his ass. maybe both.
(Do you little Monnkeey-boy dance, ASS-I, and say, "That would be you,
m'kay?")
Boikat
Kermit
He could simply be arrogant, but that is not incompatible with fear.
Fear: if evolution is true, then Jesus wasn't real, and ASI won't live
forever. (This is fallacious reasoning, but it's how biblical
literalists think, even neo-essenes).
Arrogance: if we are descended from fish, then ASI isn't special;
especially, if scientific methodology is the best way to know the
world, then his special perceptions are just fantasies. (DItto
parenthetical comment above.)
>
> Chris
Kermit
There is change in every generation.
If had a time machine, and took picture of an average human, then went
back a generation, over and over, for 7 million years , we would have
about 350 thousand pictures total. If we then lined up on the wall
chronologically, and walked along, looking at them, we wouldn't be
able to see difference from one to the next (except trivial personal
differences). The average difference between generations in a species
as it evolves is less than observed differences between some members
of any two succeeding generations. Yet when we got to the far end, you
would be looking at an ape - and not any living species.
This line would be about 70 miles long.
Do this back to tiktaalik; the line would be over 1000 miles long.
Again, any two succeeding pictures would be obviously the same
species, and show little difference.
>
> We may not be exactly alike. But we are all the same. Always have
> been. Always will be.
Fantasies, wishful thinking, and fairy tales are not evidence.
Fossils, nested hierarchies, genetics, and observed processes say
otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Amazing.
>
> > > You evo-ko0ks believe something as biologically different as a fish
> > > can eventually become a man in time
>
> > > Pure science fiction dude.
>
> > I notice that you have never once addressed the evidence that's been
> > presented to you, time after time after time, ad nauseum, that shows
> > that structures present in fish- like gonads- evolved into the same or
> > similar structures (gonads, in this case) in humans.
>
> > Not only that, we suffer the consequences of a fish-like pattern of
> > development. Your balls form high in your body (just like a fish) and
> > then must descend into the scrotum, because sperm don't develop
> > properly at 37C. That leaves a weak point in the body wall, and that
> > leads to hernias in men.
>
> > All because we have fish balls.
>
> So we are fish because we have BALLS?
No. Our balls those of us who have them - drop from their internal
origins during development because our ancestors were fish. I'll bet
you can't tell the difference between those two statements.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
>
> MeGA BYTES of laughter.!!!!
Try whistling in the dark, too; maybe that will make the scary
evidence go away.
>
> You own me a new keyboard damn it!
And yet you still manage to type.
>
> > You get the hiccups because you inherited a patch of brain cells from
> > amphibians, you know. They work great in tadpoles, but since you
> > converted your gill arches into your larynx and some other stuff, you
> > don't need those brain cells to do the same stuff they do in tadpoles.
> > But tough noogies, cause they're there. (Tadpoles use them to
> > transition between lung-breathing and gill-breathing.)
>
> HA! HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> So we are fish because of BALLS and HICCUPS? !!
We hiccup because we are fish.
>
> Giggle to PLUTO and back!!
>
> You should do stand up Chris.
>
> Do a routine based on fish that magically changed into humans that
> flew to the moon. All because they held their BALLS really tight,
> which of course produced the hiccups!
No, you are the one claiming that we are dirt, magically changed into
people. Evolutionary science uses known processes to explain this.
>
> It will be a hit
>
> I'll invest. But I want a cut.
>
> The ticket sales in the first year should be millions!
Kermit
hersheyh
Significantly higher frequency of the variant alleles that allow many
of us to be lactose-tolerant as adults, higher frequency of genes that
digest grain starches, until recently, higher frequency of variants
that contribute to malaria resistance. Significantly reduced frequency
of genes associated with Amerinds and their lack of resistance to many
African diseases. Allele changes due to the Kahn invasions of
central Asia and Eastern Europe.
> We may not be exactly alike. But we are all the same. Always have
> been. Always will be.
We have been changing allele frequencies even over historical time-
frames. Over longer time-frames, any anthropologist worth his bones
can recognize the difference between archaic H. sapiens and modern H.
sapiens. Although he may have more problem distinguishing archaic H.
sapiens from recent H. erectus.
All-seeing-I
If we are "fish" Chris, we got ripped off.
The water would be a better place to live.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Genetically? That depends very much on the person.
--
Bob.
All-seeing-I
If we are decended from Fish Kermit, then we got gyped.
I would much rather be a dolphin.
BTW.
(wisper) the only arrogance going on is within you.
All-seeing-I
umm.. Can your science categorically state it has discovered all of
the process that are active on this planet -- perhaps in other
dimensions too?
--maybe science has arrived at a final truth the rest of us do not
know about?
Man does not even have the perception ability to hear all of the known
frequencies yet you know for a fact that evolutionary science can
explain everything?
Funny K
Your house pets have better perception abilities then you have. Maybe
your plants do too! In fact, We just had a thread on that.
You have become quite the amusing one lately.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>umm.. Can your science categorically state it has discovered all of
>the process that are active on this planet -- perhaps in other
>dimensions too?
other dimensions have been disovered by science
creationism had no input since it's always wrong
>
>--maybe science has arrived at a final truth the rest of us do not
>know about?
you creationists specialize in meaningless language
>
>Man does not even have the perception ability to hear all of the known
>frequencies yet you know for a fact that evolutionary science can
>explain everything?
the concept of 'frequencies' was invented by science.
creationsits thought dogs were seeing demons
kind of shows how useless creationism is...even when the very example
cited BY a creationist shows how useless it is.
>
>
>
>
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:ffbed869-9917-4789...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Oh please. The stupid "if we don't know everything, we know nothing and it
is better to believe in a silly superstition" fallacy. Try again . . . .
.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wouldn't you be scared if the hiccups could make your balls go back to
where no fish has gone before?
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 28, 2:44�pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:26�pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 28, 11:51 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The notion that all fossilized species conform to the standard
> > > > phylogenetic-tree is unprovable.
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > > Because one can never be sure that all fossilized animals have been
> > > > discovered. THAT'S why.
>
> > > > It just don't look good for the notion that species diverge. Species
> > > > do not cross boundaries. They stay within their respective "kinds" of
> > > > life when they variate.
>
> > > blissfully ignorant fool of scientific methods and strategies as well
> > > as what data are needed to document hypotheses and theories. �Yes you
> > > do "not understand" that not only do we not even have a random
> > > distribution of found fossils nor will be ever find have more than a
> > > very limited number of any species but that is not the only or always
> > > the most critical data for understanding and documenting speciation.
> > > Your willful ignorance is highlighted by the fact very few fools have
> > > proffered the lack of "finding all fossilized animals" as a reason for
> > > sciences failure to document speciation. �Even for contemporary
> > > speciation events all or even most animals are not needed to document
> > > speciation.
>
> > > Go troll at "alt.fools.no.understand.sci".
>
> > You are a liar.
>
> Actually, you are ignorant.
>
>
>
> > Finding a new fossil species may cause a shift of other species on the
> > tree.(or bush --You people cannot make up your minds which story you
> > want to use.)
>
> > Posibly even change an entire branch causing a domino effect.
>
> > You know it. Why deny it-
>
> Nobody with an understanding of the ToE or the fossil record would
> deny that new discoveries that effect the arrangement of the "tree"
> would be adjusted if the evidence merits a change iin relationships,
> *however*, some lineages are so well supported that the chances of any
> rearrangement is not likely. �Horses, for example, will not suddenly
> have to be shifted into the group containing Varnid lizards. �Humans
> will not end up being shifted outside the lineage of Great Apes.
>
> You may fantasize that some monumental discovery may be found in the
> future. �I hope you don't plan on seeing that any time soon, however.
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
An 8 on the squeel meter.
Any number of unknown species could shift horses on the tree.
In fact, many new species could be found at once that would forever
change the tree.
Does the La brey tar pits ring a bell?
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:3593fcf8-3d78-4dc5...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> In fact, many new species could be found at once that would forever
> change the tree.
>
>
a while to replace extinct species instead of all of them being created at
once and 99% allowed to go extinct? is could be a breakthrough for you!
.
chris thompson
Why are you too frightened to talk about the facts?
Chris
chris thompson
Why is your fear so strong you retreat into meaningless one-liners?
Chris
Boikat
(Bullhorn) Projection.
Boikat
Boikat
Irrelevent to what is already known. Until evidence is presented to
support "man from mud", you have *nothing* but nihilism.
>
> --maybe science has arrived at a final truth the rest of us do not
> know about?
What makes your little pea brain think there is a "final truth"?
>
> Man does not even have the perception ability to hear all of the known
> frequencies yet you know for a fact that evolutionary science can
> explain everything?
More nihilism. Does hiding in a dark hole make you feel safer?
>
> Funny K
>
> Your house pets have better perception abilities then you have. Maybe
> your plants do too! �In fact, We just had a thread on that.
>
STFW? That does *nothing* to negate what science *does* explian to a
reasonable degree of certanty, and anything presently *unknown* is not
going to rescue the myrhs that you worship and think are factual.
> You have become quite the amusing one lately.
As opposed to your retreats into the bunny hole of nihilism? That's
what's funny.
Dance monnnkeey-boy! Let's hear some squinking, this time!
Boikat
Boikat
Not as radically as my example, moron.
>
> In fact, many new species could be found at once that would forever
> change the tree.
Possible, but I doubt mightly that there would be any that that would
remove humans from being grouped with apes, or place horses within the
reptile family.
>
> Does the La brey tar pits ring a bell?
I've never heard of the "La bray tar pits".
However, there are the La Brea Tar pits. I guess you've never heard
of them. Quite a coincidence in the names. But before you scurry off
to look them up on Google, nothing in the La Brea Tar Pits supports
anything you are squinking about. Besides, nothing found in the La
Brea Tar Pits has been of any help to creatotards in damaging the ToE,
and has only refined the ToE and the "tree" .
But since I've never heard of the (ahem) "la bray tar pits". What
about them? Does anything about them support your wishful thinking
that the "tree" will be "changed" or toppled to favor your fantasy
notion of reality? Did they find a 6000 year old UFO stuck in the
tar, with a post card sized clay tabelet in it, inscribed with some
vacation slogan about "Earth Wimmin R EZ", with the tower of Babel
etched in the background?
Or (more than likely) were you just tossing something out that you
imagined meant something?
Come on Monnnkey-boy, let's see your new "la bray tar pit' dance!
(La *bray* tar pits! Sheesh!)
Boikat
Boikat
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
I want to hear all about that "La bray tar pit" thing. I wonder if
it's anything like the La Brea Tar Pits in L. A.
Boikat
Michael
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 4:14�pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2:49 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 29, 10:31 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > Sure. I'm different from my parents. But i am not biologicaly
> > > > different from a man walking the earth say, 4000 years ago either.
>
> > > This boggles the mind.
>
> > > You ARE different from your parents, but you are NOT different from
> > > someone who lived 4000 years ago?
>
> > > Amazing.
>
> > What constitutes the difference between a human today and a human
> > 4,000 years ago theneinstein?
>
> What makes you think there have been no genetic changes in 4000 years?
Feel free to post some to support your point, although I feel that you
may be
posting genetic maladies ...
> And why pick 4000 years?
I didn't you goofball!
chris thompson
Is this ASI? Don't nym-shift; you'll get banned.
Chris
Boikat
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 9:27�am, Michael <yos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 6:19�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> > > And why pick 4000 years?
>
> > I didn't you goofball!
>
> Is this ASI? Don't nym-shift; you'll get banned.
>
Oh, the horror.
Boikat
Boikat
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76657.php
Have fun.
.
>
> > And why pick 4000 years?
>
> I didn't you goofball!-
Chris was responding to Asshole Shitting I(diot), and was not asking
*you* why *you* picked 4000 years. How could Chris be asking you
that, when this appears to be your first post in this thread? Are you
high on crack, or are you also Asshole Shitting-I(diot)?
Boikat
chris thompson
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full.pdf+html
>
> > And why pick 4000 years?
>
> I didn't you goofball!
Ah, so this is not ASI. Sorry. I cannot tell one loon from another.
Chris
Kleuskes & Moos
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:40:13 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >umm.. Can your science categorically state it has discovered all of
> >the process that are active on this planet -- perhaps in other
> >dimensions too?
>
> other dimensions have been disovered by science
Ummm... Einstein postulates time as a dimension... String theory
postulates a number (11 IFAIK) of dimensions.... But do these count as
dicoveries? Certainly the latter is still highly sp[eculative...
> creationism had no input since it's always wrong
In that sense it proves very reliable, indeed.
<snip>
Greg G.
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
This is a nice presentation of a five year study that looked at the
genetic markers of people in different parts of the world. By
comparing these markers, they could determine when and where the
markers arose so they could then map the migrations of humans
throughout the world.
The markers are variations arising from new mutations. They are
determined by examining the DNA.
>
> > And why pick 4000 years?
>
> I didn't you goofball!
ASI did and you seemed to be defending it.
gregwrld
This from the guy who thinks some
invisible being goes "poof" and a new
species pops into existence.
And if that's not how you think your
deity works here's your opportunity
to tell us how it does work.
gregwrld
Ye Old One
Dolphin are NOT fish Mudbrain, they are mammals, much more closely
related to us than fish.
>
>BTW.
>(wisper) the only arrogance going on is within you.
No, it isn't little Mudbrain. If you had any intelligence you would
see that.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>If we are "fish" Chris, we got ripped off.
>
>The water would be a better place to live.
>
We are not fish, though we do share a common ancestor with all modern
fish. And yes, water would be the best place for you, you would not be
able to use a computer there.
--
Bob.
You are depriving a village somewhere of an idiot.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>umm.. Can your science categorically state it has discovered all of
>the process that are active on this planet
No, but we know one hell of a lot more than you creationists do.
>-- perhaps in other
>dimensions too?
What "other dimensions"?
>
>--maybe science has arrived at a final truth the rest of us do not
>know about?
They have arrived at a lot of truths that you stupidly reject.
>
>Man does not even have the perception ability to hear all of the known
>frequencies
Wrong. As usual.
> yet you know for a fact that evolutionary science can
>explain everything?
About life, yes.
>
>Funny K
>
>Your house pets have better perception abilities then you have.
Wrong. Again!
> Maybe
>your plants do too! In fact, We just had a thread on that.
Only in your dreams.
>
>You have become quite the amusing one lately.
You never have been.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
I doubt that very much.
>
>In fact, many new species could be found at once that would forever
>change the tree.
>
>Does the La brey tar pits ring a bell?
Yes Mudbrain. Now, as a creationist, maybe you can explain why you
think no dinosaur remains are found in the tar pits?
--
Bob.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
Caranx latus
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:29:20 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >If we are "fish" Chris, we got ripped off.
>
> >The water would be a better place to live.
>
> We are not fish, though we do share a common ancestor with all modern
> fish. And yes, water would be the best place for you, you would not be
> able to use a computer there.
Don't jump to conclusions:
<http://img.labnol.org/di/waterphelps1.jpg>
