Is Evolution Voodoo Science?
All-seeing-I
Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
of adhering to the scientific method.
Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
hypotheses.[2]
Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
population of human creatures? NTIR
Why yes. I think we have a match.
Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
Source: Wikipedia
--
Discovering Voodoo Science with...
The All Seeing I
chris thompson
Straw Man: "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is
presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the
argument and to another topic."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
Has anyone ever observed an evolutionary biologist claiming that each
and every speciation event must be observed in real-time? NTIR.
Therefore, AS-I can only argue against pathetic straw men.
Chris
Jason Carlson
Observable evidence does not mean you have to directly watch evolution
happen. It simply means the evidence given must be "observable" or
able to be viewed by other people. This is of course, opposed to
unobservable evidence, such as that which is commonly given for
deities, evidence such as "I felt his love in my heart" or "God gives
me a reason to live, so he must exist".
We can and do readily observe the fossil evidence in support of man's
descent from apes, the genotypical evidence of man's descent from
apes, and the morphological evidence of man's descent from apes, all
of which are extremely well documented and available in droves.
Your strawman holds no merit. Please crawl back into your cave.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
So evolution does not need an observable testable model for
speciation?
Didn't you just pove my point?
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where is the testable model for speciation?
Do you suggest evolution does NOT have to conform to general and
acceptable practices of science?. What makes evolution exempt from
this procedure?
Boikat
It's closely relalated to creation science and Intelligent Design
science.
>
> Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
> of adhering to the scientific method.
Like creationism and ID
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
Fossil record = observed evidence. Sorry it you do not accept that as
an observation, but it is, none the less.
But then again, the fossil record is not the only observed phenimena
that suggests human are just another twig on the "ape" branch of the
trree of life. There's the detailed morphology, and genetic nested
heiarchy, too.
>
> Why yes. I think we have a match.
Only in your wee little mind.
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
Therefore, Null thinking I(diot) tried to think again, and failed.
>
> Source: Wikipedia
You should try using your brain, what little there is of it, when you
attempt to read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
After all this time, you finally got around to looking up "The
scientific method" in wiki? What? Did your mommy or daddy skip that
part in your home drooling schooling?
>
> --
> Discovering the limits of stupidity with...
>
> The All Seeing I
If they ever develope an aircraft that runs off of stupidity, you'd be
the first choice as test pilot.
Boikat
Burkhard
Genes change over time
> Do you suggest evolution does NOT have to conform to general and
> acceptable practices of science?.
No
> What makes evolution exempt from
> this procedure?
Nothing. It adheres to the procedure by making testable statements.
Nashton
clueless proponents that blindly accept it because it "fits" their world
view, that it's starting to reassemble Lysenkoism or Aristotle's
heliocentric theory that kept science from advancing for centuries.
The ToE is of very limited value but I do have a lot of respect for the
efforts that scientists are making to advance our knowledge, but only
when it serves a purpose in the short and long term.
And then you get all the clueless goons that adhere to the theory just
to be cool or because they don't have anything better to do with their
useless lives.
We know who they are;)
Boikat
No. The only point is on the top of your head. *YOUR* example was
the strawman argument. You claimed that since a population of apes
has not been directly observed evolving into human, evolution fails
the scientific method. That is a strawman argument, you ignorant
twit.
Boikat
Boikat
As opposed the the emotional investment in creationism? After all, the
main reason cretionists deny evolution is because that emans there was
no Adam and Eve, therfore, no Fall, therfore, no need fro Jesus's
sacrifice on teh cross, and so on, and therefore.... Well, that's
where the creationists start pissing in their pants because then there
is brobably no redemtion for original sin, no forgiveness by an all
loving god -thing, and they are going to go to Hell, no matter what,
or there's no afterlife, and they go "poof", and exist no more, when
they die.
>
> And then you get all the clueless goons that adhere to the theory just
> to be cool or because they don't have anything better to do with their
> useless lives.
Never mind the evidence that god-smacked 'tards pretend does not
exist.
>
> We know who they are;)
The ones that make you, and Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite, look like
mind numbingly stupid fools. Glad to be of service.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
> of adhering to the scientific method.
From the same Wikipedia page on Voodoo Science:
Park, a physics professor, science administrator/lobbyist/journalist
and outspoken scientific skeptic, outlines his seven warning signs
that a claim may be pseudoscientific and analyzes beliefs in popular
culture and the media with a skeptical eye. Those seven warning signs
are:
1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather
than to fellow scientists.
2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the
discovery.
3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly
distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the
signal.
4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream
scientific community.
7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding
of the fundamental laws of nature.
End of extract.
Now examine the theory of evolution in light of these warning signs.
Does it match any of them?
No.
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
You seem to have forgotten that the testing of a hypothesis or theory
requires predictions to be made, and that it is these that are tested
to confirm the validity of the said hypothesis or theory.
Using the theory of evolution, it was predicted that there should be
an animal that would be transitional between fish and amphibian, and
that this creature's fossils would be found in sedimentary rocks that
would be between those that contain the first fish fossils and those
that contain the first amphibian fossils. It was then determined where
such rocks would be easily accessible due to erosion processes.
And surprise, surprise such fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere
Island in Nunavut, Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
>Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
>of adhering to the scientific method.
>
>Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
always amusing to watch a guy who has
-no formal scientific training
-never spent a day in a lab
-is a religious fanatic
-a deep hatred for science
tell scientists how we should do our work
>
>Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
>population of human creatures? NTIR
this is not how science works, regardless of the comic book view
creationists have.
science works by observing and testing theories. theories do not have
to be tested in every single situation in which they may be
encountered. no one is going to test nucleosynthesis by sitting inside
a star.
creationism? for 2000 years it didn't know ANYTHING about
science...but NOW creationists think they have this magical
'observation' mantra that enables them to slay the evil dragon of
evolution
sorry, sport, you ain't in NO position to tell us scientists what is
or isn't science
and, yes, evoution has a TESTABLE MECHANISM
end of story
bpuharic
>Where is the testable model for speciation?
>Do you suggest evolution does NOT have to conform to general and
>acceptable practices of science?. What makes evolution exempt from
>this procedure?
i'm a chemist. i don't care whether evolution is true or not.
BUT...as an independent observer, yes, evolution conforms to the
scientific method.
and creationists think creation-magic should be considered science
even though it's failed for 2000 years to explain nature
bpuharic
>>
>>
>There is so much emotion invested in the validity of the ToE
says the religious fanatic who has a strong hatred for science...
ironic, ain't it?
and so many
>clueless proponents that blindly accept it because it "fits" their world
>view, that it's starting to reassemble Lysenkoism or Aristotle's
>heliocentric theory that kept science from advancing for centuries.
....hmmm...helicoentrism...favored by creationsits...defended by the
church...
yes. you have a point. creationists are clueless
>The ToE is of very limited value
and creationism is of NO value...
but I do have a lot of respect for the
>efforts that scientists are making to advance our knowledge, but only
>when it serves a purpose in the short and long term.
>
>And then you get all the clueless goons that adhere to the theory just
>to be cool or because they don't have anything better to do with their
>useless lives.
says the religious fanatic who adheres to creationism because he wants
to be cool and has nothing better to do with his life...
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>So evolution does not need an observable testable model for
>speciation?
>
no, it does not. it needs a testable model for descent with
modification...which is what speciation is
and evolution has the model
creationism? not so much
go back to your comic books
chris thompson
"Evolution" doesn't need anything: it is a process, not an entity with
needs.
But to support evolutionary theory, we as scientists require testable
models.
And now I have to act like I am addressing a three-year-old:
Just as you would not require an astronomer to sit around waiting for
a particular sun to go nova to provide evidence of the Main Sequence,
you would not require real-time observations of speciation events in
order to support that model. THAT is the straw man you are
constructing.
And why do you keep ignoring the fact that speciation HAS been
observed in real time. Spartina, remember?
Why the dishonesty?
>
> Didn't you just pove my point?
No.
Chris
chris thompson
"Reassemble"?
Were you trying to write "resemble" you illiterate buffoon?
Not only are you illiterate, you are completely ignorant of history.
Given that Lysenko was ideologically diametrically opposed to
Darwinian evolution, there is no way evolutionary biology would come
to resemble (or "reassemble", whatever the heck that is supposed to
mean) his philosophy.
Also, while Lysenko might have slowed scientific progress in the USSR,
evolutionary biology made significant advances in the rest of the
world, even when Lysenko was at the peak of his influence.
If you're capable of doing so, go learn something. Anything. If
nothing else, the novelty of the experience might be its own reward.
Chris
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ha!
I provided 2 textbook definations and they match. One draws a straight
line to the other.I hardly call THAT a strawman.
Strawman:
A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in
order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is
to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and
to another topic.--wikipedia
Nomen Publicus
On the left we have an overwheming number of qualified scientists who think
evolution is a pretty nifty idea and explains the development of life on
earth.
On the right we have you. An unqualified, apparently uneducated person who,
like the parrot, hears a thing and repeats it without understanding.
--
Not believing in the existence of god(s) doesn't require,
imply or excuse a lack of humanity.
Boikat
Selective citations mean nothing. You lack the cognitive ability to
understand the true meaning of th Scientific Method, or how it's used.
>
> Strawman:
> A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in
> order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is
> to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and
> to another topic.--wikipedia-
Such as where you seem to think that since nobody has seen a
population of apes evolve into a population of humans, right before
their eyes.... *That* is the strawman, since it misrepresents what
one would expect to observe (since the evolution of a species of spe
into a species of human would take millions of years) you pig-ignorant
piece of dishonest crap.
You are also stupid to think that a failure to comply with your
fantasy interpretation of the Scientific Method means the ToE is
invalidated or unscientific.
This leave the *fact* that you are either too stupid to understand the
scientific method, or you do understand, but are too dishonest to
admit, that once again, you made yourself look like a stupid,
drooling, idiot.
Grow up, hillbilly.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
Science.
Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On 11 Nov, 11:11, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>>
>> Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
>> of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> From the same Wikipedia page on Voodoo Science:
>
> Park, a physics professor, science administrator/lobbyist/journalist
> and outspoken scientific skeptic, outlines his seven warning signs
> that a claim may be pseudoscientific and analyzes beliefs in popular
> culture and the media with a skeptical eye. Those seven warning signs
> are:
>
> 1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather
> than to fellow scientists.
There is no list of significant creationism publications in the
peer-reviewed scientific literature.
There are people at the "Dsicovery" Institute who spend all their time
writing letters to the editor of national newspapers and magazines, however,
extolling the virtues of creationism/"intelligent design".
>
> 2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the
> discovery.
Creationism is a textbook example of this!
>
> 3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly
> distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the
> signal.
If anyone has an actual observed effect of creationism (what IS the theory
of creationism, again?) I have yet to see it presented.
>
> 4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
Our boy Adman/ASI does this, as do other creationists.
>
> 5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
Adman/ASI is inordinately fond of quoting ancient documents in support of
his claims. Most of the time we discover that he is talking through his
arse.
>
> 6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream
> scientific community.
Not many creationists in bona fide scientific institutions. A few, but
their colleagues tend to shun them.
>
> 7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding
> of the fundamental laws of nature.
Creationism definitely falls in this pocket.
>
> End of extract.
>
> Now examine the theory of evolution in light of these warning signs.
>
> Does it match any of them?
>
Does Creationism? Yes. All of them.
Creationism is the ultimate "Cargo Cult" version of science.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ernest Major
<wf...@comcast.net> writes
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:08:12 -0400, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>There is so much emotion invested in the validity of the ToE
>
>says the religious fanatic who has a strong hatred for science...
>
>ironic, ain't it?
>
>
>and so many
>>clueless proponents that blindly accept it because it "fits" their world
>>view, that it's starting to reassemble Lysenkoism or Aristotle's
>>heliocentric theory that kept science from advancing for centuries.
>
>....hmmm...helicoentrism...favored by creationsits...defended by the
>church...
Some creationists are geocentrists. It's not clear whether Nicola/s
intended to support geocentrism above. (His ire would be better directed
at Ptolemy's geocentric solar system, which Wikipedia tells me was
derived from Aristotle's views, so it may be that Nicola/s is merely
confused. He appears to have confused you as well.)
>
>yes. you have a point. creationists are clueless
>
>>The ToE is of very limited value
>
>and creationism is of NO value...
>
>
> but I do have a lot of respect for the
>>efforts that scientists are making to advance our knowledge, but only
>>when it serves a purpose in the short and long term.
>>
>>And then you get all the clueless goons that adhere to the theory just
>>to be cool or because they don't have anything better to do with their
>>useless lives.
>
>says the religious fanatic who adheres to creationism because he wants
>to be cool and has nothing better to do with his life...
You're more confident of Nicola/s's motives that I am. I'm not convinced
that he is a creationist.
>
>>
>>We know who they are;)
>
--
alias Ernest Major
All-Seeing-I
You omit a pice of the puzzle. The missing piece is: Why. The
Astronomer does not need to sit around because once you have observed
something once, it usually does not need to be observed again once the
data is collected.
In the case of speciation, you do not even have one observation.
> And why do you keep ignoring the fact that speciation HAS been
> observed in real time. Spartina, remember?
Again, a pice of the puzzle is missing. This time: What.
What did you have at the end of the test? You still had another type
of Spartina. The Spartina did not show evidence of diverging into
something that was no longer anything but Spartina or a variation
thereof.
Therefore evolution was not observed but variation within the same
kind of life was observed.
But to be fair and in case I am wrong; And, since you are SO much
smarter then I am; Were there any predictions made from the Spartina
experiment that predicted speciation to the point of something that
could be considered no longer Spartina?
> Why the dishonesty?
It is not moi` that represents variation for speciation.
Devils Advocaat
Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
interbreed, that they are different species?
Boikat
You are a liar.
>
> > And why do you keep ignoring the fact that speciation HAS been
> > observed in real time. Spartina, remember?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See, you lied.
<snip remaining lies and whining>
Boikat
Boikat
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Frank J
> What is Voodoo Science anyway?
Who do that voodoo that you do so well?
All-Seeing-I
[cut previous topic]
>
> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
what?
If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
is descended from the wolf does it?.
Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
seed bearing fruit tree.
Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
which says: "each after his own kind".
The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
peg being forced to fit the square hole.
Kermit
> of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> population of human creatures? NTIR
>
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
>
> Source: Wikipedia
>
> --
> Discovering Voodoo Science with...
>
> The All Seeing I
That's as silly as claiming that meteorologists must be able to
reproduce a particular hurricane, or vulcanologists must be able to re-
erupt Krakatoa, or forensic scientists must be able to recreate a
murder.
Examples of evolutionary theory's actual predictions (test of the
theory) include:
tiktaalik,
archaeopteryx,
ambulocetus,
and all of the African hominid fossils found so far.
The hypothesis has never been "If we stick non-human apes in a lab and
wait a few years, they will transmogrify into Creationists".
Although it wouldn't surprise us. The actual hypothesis would be
something like "we and the closest kin we have, as determined by the
nested hierarchy of morphology, are descended from relatively recent
(compared to us and yeast) common ancestors. Any fossil, genetic,
detailed morphological evidence, etc. will continue to support this."
So far, this has not been refuted.
Remember that the "theory" of evolution is actually a number of
closely related theories. In principle, one could refute the model
that mutations are unbiased to the needs of the organism without
refuting common descent via modification. One could have refuted
Darwin's idea that humans would be descended from African apes without
refuting the model that we share a common ancestor with all life.
Displaying your sad grasp of scientific methodology does not make a
strong case against mainstream biology, although it does offer
continued support that Creationism is not science.
Kermit
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
>Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
>of adhering to the scientific method.
>
>Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
>A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
>and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
>[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
>observation
Which need not mean direct observation. Forensic observation is more
than adequate. Idiot.
John Harshman
> What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
> of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
No, but of course nothing in the definition you have provided requires
any such thing. What we do instead is collect data through observation
and experimentation (in this case, more observation than experiment),
form hypotheses, and use the data to test them. It isn't necessary to
see an event as long as there are data that enable us to test it. And of
course there are.
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
All you've done here is provide a definition of science and assert
without argument that evolution doesn't fit that definition. But it
does. You appear not to understand the definition.
John Harshman
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [cut previous topic]
>> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> what?
>
> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
>
> I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> is descended from the wolf does it?.
Indeed it doesn't. Nor does Homo sapiens being a new species change the
fact that it's descended from an earlier species. That's our point, not
yours.
> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> seed bearing fruit tree.
Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
> the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
There haven't been millions of generations of man, if by "man" you mean
Homo sapiens. And since you allow that reproductive isolation can
evolve, the observation that humans haven't become reproductively
isolated is irrelevant to any point you may be trying to make.
Then again, we know that humans and chimps are closely related by common
descent, so there must have been at least one speciation event in their
past, right?
> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> which says: "each after his own kind".
How do you know you have even interpreted that right? Maybe is just
means that children resemble their parents, and that hybridization
between species is rare. Maybe is says nothing about evolution. How do
you know?
> The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
> peg being forced to fit the square hole.
Yes, and we observe that the earth is flat, and that you can divide a
substance indefinitely. And we observe that mountains don't move, nor do
they erode ver much. Your short-term observations have no particular
relevance to a long term process.
Desertphile
I still want to know where the white wimmin are at.
Boikat
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [cut previous topic]
>
>
>
> > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> what?
That's evolution.
>
> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
It doesn't. That's evolution, you stupid schmuck.
>
> I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> is descended from the wolf does it?.
To repeat, that's what humans cal "evolution", you stupid schmuck.
>
> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree.
News flash: Nuts are seeds.
> But a seed
> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> seed bearing fruit tree.
If those fruit trees can no longer be crossed, then that too, is an
example of evolution, you stupid schmuck.
>
> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
> the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
Very few human populations have been totally isolated from each other
for any significant ammount of time, you stupid schmuck.
> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> which says: "each after his own kind".
Define "kind". Please.
>
> The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
> peg being forced to fit the square hole.
Your inability to perceive, or understand, the facts is your
shortfall, you stupid schmuck.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [cut previous topic]
>
>
>
> > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> what?
Perhaps you should try and answer my question, and not wander off on a
completely different course.
Try again, would you not agree that if two populations of organisms
cannot interbreed, that they are different species?
>
Dan Listermann
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:e0010791-b900-49e3...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 11, 9:42 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> which says: "each after his own kind".
"Define "kind". Please."
He won't. It is a theological construct used to dismiss evolution. It has
no scientific meaning.
.
TomS
<17a60$4afae883$4a53bf9f$28...@FUSE.NET>, Dan Listermann stated..."
Is ASI still misquoting the Bible?
It has been repeatedly pointed out that no known English version of
the Bible has that phrase: "each after his own kind".
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [cut previous topic]
>
>
>
> > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> what?
Then speciation has occurred.
>
> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
Not at all, just as humans are different from fish today, doesn't
change the fact that we are descended from lobe finned fish.
>
> I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> is descended from the wolf does it?.
No, it doesn't change it. Like it doesn't change anything to note
that humans are descended from fish.
>
> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries.
That's because there aren't any "boundries" when it comes to
speciation.
>A seed bearing
> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree.
Are almond trees a "nut bearing tree"? They are closely related to
fruit bearing trees like peaches, and apricots.
>But a seed
> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> seed bearing fruit tree.
Nuts are a form of seed. There really isn't any biological
distinction between a "seed bearing" tree and a "nut bearing tree".
>
> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
> the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
In order for divergence to occur, there must be isolation. Human
populations have always had gene flow between populations. Put a
colony of humans into space, where there isn't any gene flow possible
between populations, and you will see "divergence".
>
> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> which says: "each after his own kind".
Of course, "kind" is an entirely meaningless concept here. All life
is the same "kind".
>
> The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> with what we observe happening in nature.
Why? "fish to man" is of course only one selective course following
the tree of life. Fish to all tetrapods including humans, is very
well documented in both the genetic and the fossil record. "ape to
man" is even better documented, because it happened much more
recently.
>It is the perverbial round
> peg being forced to fit the square hole.
No, it's what's been observed. Trying to force "ancient texts" to
support your bizarre ideas is what's foolish.
DJT
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 9:42 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re: The Fish To Man Theory was[Re: Is Evolution Voodoo Science?]
Golly, yet another Creationism "theory." It's hard to keep up with
you Creationist nutcases' beliefs.
> > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > [cut previous topic]
> > > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > > interbreed, that they are different species?
>> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
>> what?
ROTFL!
> That's evolution.
And adman is still a nut.
>> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
>> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
This shit-for-brains adman doesn't even know what he is
complaining against. FUNNY!
> It doesn't. That's evolution, you stupid schmuck.
"Yes, but they are *STILL* descended from wolves!" LOL.
> > I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> > reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> > is descended from the wolf does it?
No scientist claims otherwise, adman retard.
> To repeat, that's what humans call "evolution", you stupid schmuck.
Yeah, and that's why evolutionary theory says that's evolution.
> > Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries.
What "boundries," adman retard?
> > A seed bearing
> > fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree.
> News flash: Nuts are seeds.
> > But a seed
> > bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> > seed bearing fruit tree.
> If those fruit trees can no longer be crossed, then that too, is an
> example of evolution, you stupid schmuck.
>> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man.
No, shit-for-brains: there is only one species of humans, and
there are no such things as "variations of man."
> > But is there even
> > the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> > that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
>
> Very few human populations have been totally isolated from each other
> for any significant ammount of time, you stupid schmuck.
>
> > All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> > which says: "each after his own kind".
>
> Define "kind". Please.
>
> >
> > The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> > with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
> > peg being forced to fit the square hole.
>
> Your inability to perceive, or understand, the facts is your
> shortfall, you stupid schmuck.
>
> Boikat
r norman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>All-Seeing-I wrote:
<snip>
>> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
>> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
>> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
>> seed bearing fruit tree.
>
>Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
Less-than-All's seeing is indeed extremely murky on biology. "Tree"
isn't at all a proper biological grouping but "fruit" can be. "Fruit"
is essentially equivalent to "flower" because a flower contains an
ovary bearing ovules. After fertilization the ovules become seeds and
the ovary fruit. So "Fruit-bearing plant" is indeed a group
equivalent to the flowering plants. And, of course, "seed-bearing
plant" is a larger group. The fact is that a "seed-bearing plant" did
give rise to a "fruit-bearing plant" because the Angiosperms are a
subdivision of the Spermatopsida.
You know all this, of course. All-seeing knows nothing of this. Yet
he claims to understand boundaries.
hersheyh
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> [cut previous topic]
>
>
>
> > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> what?
>
> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
How is descent with modification not evolution?
> I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> is descended from the wolf does it?.
Not at all. That is what descent with modification (aka evolution)
does. It would still be descent with modification (evolution) whether
or not changes leading to reproductive isolation occurred. But
species formation requires, at some point in time or space,
reproductive isolation.
> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> seed bearing fruit tree.
Can you creationists at least consider the possibility that using
kindergarten taxonomy (e.g., fruit trees) is not evidence.
> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
> the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
Exactly how do you determine the boundaries of "mankind"? Do you
include archaic H. sapiens? H. sapiens neandertalis? H. erectus? H.
habilis? Even experts have difficulty with borderline cases.
> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> which says: "each after his own kind".
Which makes the 'platonic ideal' error. In fact, evolution involves a
population reproducing "each after his own kind" all the way through
the phenotypic changes that lead to speciation and the repeated
speciation events that cause larger phenotypic divergences.
> The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
> peg being forced to fit the square hole.
No one but creationists think that a specific fish *directly* gave
birth to an ape without any intermediate speciation events (many,
many, many, many of them, leading to many different modern
organisms). The only real question is if some types of fish led to
some type of land animal (which would be called an amphibian). There
are, of course, intermediate fossils between fully aquatic lobe-finned
fish and organisms that were tetrapod amphibians. But even there,
there are undoubtedly intermediate species whose fossils we do not
have. We are talking about *very* long stretches of geological time.
But, as to the second part, man (H. sapiens) *is* an ape. That is
part of the problem with kindergarten taxonomy. It often involves
sloppy and inaccurate groupings.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>[cut previous topic]
>>
>> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
>what?
>
>If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
>change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
uh..that's the point you are denying. the dog is no longer a wolf.
evolution has taken place
>
>I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
>reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
>is descended from the wolf does it?.
>
>Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries.
especially if you set the boundaries so wide they're meaningless
>
>Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
>the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
>that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
actually yes. europeans have developed the ability to process
lactose. all american indians are o+ blood. etc. etc...
>
>All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
>which says: "each after his own kind".
yeah. if an ape and a man are the same 'kind'.
>
>The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
>peg being forced to fit the square hole.
you just admitted it happens
whatsamatter, creationist? forget your own argument?
bpuharic
>>
>
>You omit a pice of the puzzle. The missing piece is: Why. The
>Astronomer does not need to sit around because once you have observed
>something once, it usually does not need to be observed again once the
>data is collected.
we have seen evolution. that's what we need to see. speciation is
irreleva nt
>
>In the case of speciation, you do not even have one observation.
sure we do. you yourself admitted it. you then when on to complain
that different species of fruit flies were still fruitflies
IOW you don't know what you're talking about
>
>
>> And why do you keep ignoring the fact that speciation HAS been
>> observed in real time. Spartina, remember?
>
>Again, a pice of the puzzle is missing. This time: What.
>
>What did you have at the end of the test? You still had another type
>of Spartina. The Spartina did not show evidence of diverging into
>something that was no longer anything but Spartina or a variation
>thereof.
like i said...he admits that apes can share a common ancestor with
man...but then says apes and men are primates so evolution doesn't
happen
go figure.
Richard Smol
> of adhering to the scientific method.
Like creationism.
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
Something you will never be able to understand.
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
Yes. It's observed in the fossil record.
> Why yes. I think we have a match.
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
Only to people who don't understand how science works.
RS
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
No.
<snip irrelevantia>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Wilkins
In article
<b4f6bcc9-2fa4-4cf9...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Jason Carlson <jcarl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:11�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > What is Voodoo Science anyway?
I really want to know the experimental protocols that enabled the
voodou practitioners to find the zombie drug. "Does this make a living
dead?" "Nope, killed him." "Does *this* make a living dead?"...
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "Dan Listermann"
<d...@listermann.com>:
[attributions fixed; *please* correct your newsreader]
>>"Define "kind". Please."
Actually, it's a term used in the Bible, not something
cobbled up to refute anything. But the fundies, not
realizing that every single creature reproduces "each after
his own kind" *and always has*, and being essentially
ignorant of science in general and biology in particular,
seem to think it supports their belief. It doesn't.
> It has
>no scientific meaning.
Well, no. And there's no reason it should.
Nashton
Go away you nauseating nobody.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 11, 5:19 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 6:11 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>>
>> > Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
>> > of adhering to the scientific method.
>>
>> > Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>>
>> > A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
>> > and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
>> > [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
>> > observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
>> > hypotheses.[2]
>>
>> > Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
>> > population of human creatures? NTIR
>>
>> > Why yes. I think we have a match.
>>
>> > Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
>>
>> > Source: Wikipedia
>>
>> > --
>> > Discovering Voodoo Science with...
>>
>> > The All Seeing I
>>
>> Straw Man: "A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is
>> presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
>> basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the
>> argument and to another topic."
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
>>
>> Has anyone ever observed an evolutionary biologist claiming that each
>> and every speciation event must be observed in real-time? NTIR.
>>
>> Therefore, AS-I can only argue against pathetic straw men.
>>
>> Chris
>
>So evolution does not need an observable testable model for
>speciation?
Look moron, evolution is a fact. Our scientific explanation of the
processes involved is know as the ToE. Evolution, the thing happening
in the real world, does not need a model. Science makes the models and
then checks them against the reality. The ToE has stood for 150 years
and in that time has gained a mountain of supporting evidence, added
genetics and a lot more to its armory, and is now one of the most
respected scientific theories there is.
We understand speciation and observe it.
>
>Didn't you just pove my point?
You never have one.
--
Bob.
Here we see the creationist in its natural environment, between a rock
and a hard place. We can tell it is of the young earth breed due to
the way it reaches, grasping for straws but only clasps thin air.
Burkhard
> Piggybacking:
> In article
> <b4f6bcc9-2fa4-4cf9-bc8d-3a5a55783...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Jason Carlson <jcarlso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 5:11 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> I really want to know the experimental protocols that enabled the
> voodou practitioners to find the zombie drug. "Does this make a living
> dead?" "Nope, killed him." "Does *this* make a living dead?"...
< Big Grin>
I'll ask a bokor I know to revive Zora Neale Hurston to ask her why
she never thought of this question!
Ye Old One
>The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>with what we observe happening in nature.
You know very well it does.
--
Bob.
The truth is like ice water, it shocks you when it hits you, but no
one's ever died from it. Do yourself a favour and try it sometime.
guscubed
>
> clueless proponents that blindly accept it because it "fits" their world
> view, that it's starting to reassemble Lysenkoism or Aristotle's
> heliocentric theory that kept science from advancing for centuries.
> The ToE is of very limited value but I do have a lot of respect for the
> efforts that scientists are making to advance our knowledge, but only
> when it serves a purpose in the short and long term.
>
> And then you get all the clueless goons that adhere to the theory just
> to be cool or because they don't have anything better to do with their
> useless lives.
>
> We know who they are;)
Q: How do we know that Lysenkoism or Heliocentrism are not valid
scientific theories?
A: The evidence does not fit with these theories and predictions made
from them are not observed in nature - there are other theories that
explain the phenomena that Lysenkoism and Heliocentrism attempt to
address and that we can use to make valid predictions and that fit the
known evidence.
Now, apply the same metric to Evolution. What are the observations
that contradict evolutionary theory? What predictions from
evolutionary theory have been observed to be false?
Now apply the same metric to ID... but you first have to describe the
theory, including a mechanism so we know exactly what it is we are
discussing.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:13:16 -0800, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
>>> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
>>> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
>>> seed bearing fruit tree.
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
> Less-than-All's seeing is indeed extremely murky on biology. "Tree"
> isn't at all a proper biological grouping but "fruit" can be. "Fruit"
> is essentially equivalent to "flower" because a flower contains an
> ovary bearing ovules. After fertilization the ovules become seeds and
> the ovary fruit.
Yes, I was using "fruit" in the common sense, i.e. a sweet fruit larger
than a berry. A pineapple is a fruit. A tomato isn't. Nor is anything
that isn't edible. That's adman's definition, I'm pretty sure.
Mike Lyle
[...]>
> ....hmmm...helicoentrism...favored by creationsits...defended by the
> church...
"Helicoentrism"? Is that snail-shagging? I'd have thought even
creationists would have found that a bit weird.
[...]
--
Mike.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:42:40 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> >The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> >with what we observe happening in nature.
> You know very well it does.
You're kidding! There really is a Man or Ape to Man Theory?
All-Seeing-I
> All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > [cut previous topic]
> >> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> >> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> > what?
>
> > If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
> > change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
>
> > I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
> > reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
> > is descended from the wolf does it?.
>
> Indeed it doesn't. Nor does Homo sapiens being a new species change the
> fact that it's descended from an earlier species. That's our point, not
> yours.
Homo.S is the exception. Is there no exceptions in science?
We have texts that say Homo.S was created.
>
> > Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
> > fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
> > bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
> > seed bearing fruit tree.
>
> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
It is not suprising that you want nature to conform to your ideas.
A fruit tree has never been shown to give rise to a nut tree. Why is
that?
>
> > Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
> > the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
> > that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
>
> There haven't been millions of generations of man, if by "man" you mean
> Homo sapiens. And since you allow that reproductive isolation can
> evolve, the observation that humans haven't become reproductively
> isolated is irrelevant to any point you may be trying to make.
>
> Then again, we know that humans and chimps are closely related by common
> descent, so there must have been at least one speciation event in their
> past, right?
No. Man will give rise to a variation of another kind of man. A chimp
will give rise to another kind of Chimp. Why do you so desire to
conflate the two creatures?
>
> > All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
> > which says: "each after his own kind".
>
> How do you know you have even interpreted that right? Maybe is just
> means that children resemble their parents, and that hybridization
> between species is rare. Maybe is says nothing about evolution. How do
> you know?
It says "His" kind. That would be after the male. Life was told to
fill the earth. Each kind of life were to do that after his own kind.
>
> > The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
> > with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
> > peg being forced to fit the square hole.
>
> Yes, and we observe that the earth is flat, and that you can divide a
> substance indefinitely. And we observe that mountains don't move, nor do
> they erode ver much. Your short-term observations have no particular
> relevance to a long term process
Long or short term. Nothing has been shown to give rise to anything
other then a variation of the same "kind" of life.
All-Seeing-I
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:13:16 -0800, John Harshman
>
OK. Where is your evidence that a "Fruit-bearing plant" has given
rise to something like a Nut tree, or a fern.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
define different
bpuharic
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>
>Go away you nauseating nobody.
i love it when you talk creationist sweet talk
Free Lunch
All-Seeing-I <allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<bebd8cdd-2f8b-4127...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 11, 10:13�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > [cut previous topic]
>> >> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>> >> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
>> > what?
>>
>> > If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
>> > change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
>>
>> > I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
>> > reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
>> > is descended from the wolf does it?.
>>
>> Indeed it doesn't. Nor does Homo sapiens being a new species change the
>> fact that it's descended from an earlier species. That's our point, not
>> yours.
>
>Homo.S is the exception. Is there no exceptions in science?
When there is evidence, scientists find out how they might have been
wrong.
>We have texts that say Homo.S was created.
None that are meaningful. We know that the Bible is totally useless for
this. By the way, the name is H. sapiens if you insist on shortening it.
>
>>
>> > Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
>> > fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
>> > bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
>> > seed bearing fruit tree.
>>
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
>It is not suprising that you want nature to conform to your ideas.
Nature exists. You need to make your ideas conform to its reality.
>A fruit tree has never been shown to give rise to a nut tree. Why is
>that?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>> > Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
>> > the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
>> > that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
>>
>> There haven't been millions of generations of man, if by "man" you mean
>> Homo sapiens. And since you allow that reproductive isolation can
>> evolve, the observation that humans haven't become reproductively
>> isolated is irrelevant to any point you may be trying to make.
>>
>> Then again, we know that humans and chimps are closely related by common
>> descent, so there must have been at least one speciation event in their
>> past, right?
>
>No. Man will give rise to a variation of another kind of man. A chimp
>will give rise to another kind of Chimp. Why do you so desire to
>conflate the two creatures?
And a common ancestor gave rise to both of us. Deal with reality.
>>
>> > All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
>> > which says: "each after his own kind".
>>
>> How do you know you have even interpreted that right? Maybe is just
>> means that children resemble their parents, and that hybridization
>> between species is rare. Maybe is says nothing about evolution. How do
>> you know?
>
>It says "His" kind. That would be after the male. Life was told to
>fill the earth. Each kind of life were to do that after his own kind.
You are once again letting your religious dogma make you intentionally
ignorant.
>>
>> > The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>> > with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
>> > peg being forced to fit the square hole.
>>
>> Yes, and we observe that the earth is flat, and that you can divide a
>> substance indefinitely. And we observe that mountains don't move, nor do
>> they erode ver much. Your short-term observations have no particular
>> relevance to a long term process
>
>Long or short term. Nothing has been shown to give rise to anything
>other then a variation of the same "kind" of life.
You refuse to define what you are talking about. You know that the
Genesis stories are not historically valid, why do you try to defend
them?
John Harshman
> On Nov 11, 10:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> [cut previous topic]
>>>> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>>>> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
>>> what?
>>> If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
>>> change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
>>> I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
>>> reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
>>> is descended from the wolf does it?.
>> Indeed it doesn't. Nor does Homo sapiens being a new species change the
>> fact that it's descended from an earlier species. That's our point, not
>> yours.
>
> Homo.S is the exception. Is there no exceptions in science?
>
> We have texts that say Homo.S was created.
We have texts that say everything was created. And we have texts that
say Marduk slew Tiamat. How do you know which texts are true?
>>> Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
>>> fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
>>> bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
>>> seed bearing fruit tree.
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
> It is not suprising that you want nature to conform to your ideas.
>
> A fruit tree has never been shown to give rise to a nut tree. Why is
> that?
Because it takes time. I will agree that cats never give birth to dogs,
but that's irrelevant to evolution. But again, "fruit tree" isn't a
species. It's a term defined not by relationships but by having a sweet,
edible covering around its seeds. I don't think it's a kind either, but
who knows what "kind" means?
>>> Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
>>> the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
>>> that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
>> There haven't been millions of generations of man, if by "man" you mean
>> Homo sapiens. And since you allow that reproductive isolation can
>> evolve, the observation that humans haven't become reproductively
>> isolated is irrelevant to any point you may be trying to make.
>>
>> Then again, we know that humans and chimps are closely related by common
>> descent, so there must have been at least one speciation event in their
>> past, right?
>
> No. Man will give rise to a variation of another kind of man. A chimp
> will give rise to another kind of Chimp. Why do you so desire to
> conflate the two creatures?
Because the evidence shows that they have a common ancestor. What is
your evidence that they don't? There are whole genomes full of evidence
that they do.
>>> All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
>>> which says: "each after his own kind".
>> How do you know you have even interpreted that right? Maybe is just
>> means that children resemble their parents, and that hybridization
>> between species is rare. Maybe is says nothing about evolution. How do
>> you know?
>
> It says "His" kind. That would be after the male. Life was told to
> fill the earth. Each kind of life were to do that after his own kind.
That wasn't an answer. It was the start of some bizarre, sexist rant.
>>> The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>>> with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
>>> peg being forced to fit the square hole.
>> Yes, and we observe that the earth is flat, and that you can divide a
>> substance indefinitely. And we observe that mountains don't move, nor do
>> they erode ver much. Your short-term observations have no particular
>> relevance to a long term process
>
> Long or short term. Nothing has been shown to give rise to anything
> other then a variation of the same "kind" of life.
Again, you haven't even managed to define "kind". More importantly, you
seem to deny that we can get knowledge other than by direct observation.
Do you believe that mountains are uplifted? If so, how do you know? Do
you believe that Pluto orbits the sun? If so, how do you know? Do you
believe that there were humans 400,000 years ago? If so, how do you know?
guscubed
hahahahahaha! ExaBytes of Laaaffffter!
How about a fruit bearing tree that ALSO bears nuts? (a clue: fruit
are the fleshy bodies that carry seeds - some of these seeds we call
'nuts')
For a more prosaic example, the marula tree "Africa's treasure tree"
produces fruit that are prized for both their flesh and for their
nuts.
Also, seeing as Ferns (by which I assume you mean
Psilotopsida,Equisetopsida,Marattiopsida and Polypodiopsida) appear in
the fossil record a long time before angiosperms your demand for
evidence of a fruit-bearing tree giving rise to a fern is akin to me
asking you to prove that you gave birth to your great-great-
grandmother.
R. Baldwin
6bdcc1...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
> of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
>
> Why yes. I think we have a match.
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
>
>
> Source: Wikipedia
>
> --
> Discovering Voodoo Science with...
>
> The All Seeing I
>
By your reasoning, nothing exists that occurs over a period exceeding one
human lifespan. It can't be observed.
Tina Liza Jones
> On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
There isn't a fish to man theory. There is a fish to man conclusion
from the evidence. Theories are a different kind of thing.
(snip)
Eric Root
Boikat
You need the word "different" defined? Needing the word "different"
defined shows that you have resorted to attempting to play word games.
If you don't know what the word "different" means, you are truely too
ignorant to be arguing for or against *anything*.
Boikat
hersheyh
Sheesh! You really are ignorant, aren't you? "Fruit" and "nut" and
"fern" are terms that are the plant equivalent of "fish" "shark" and
"echinoderm". Kindergarten taxonomy. In actuality, ferns are about
as different from the plants (angiosperms) that produce what are, in
kindergarten taxonomy, called 'fruits' and 'nuts' as humans are from
echinoderms. Ferns do not produce flowers or seeds.
Read
http://waynesword.palomar.edu/fruitid1.htm
and you will understand that problem that arises from your sloppy
childish taxonomy. Many 'nuts', including walnut, almond, macadamia,
are really drupes with inedible instead of fleshy pericarps. That is,
'nuts' are often really a subset of 'fruits' related to peaches and
plums (also drupes). The difference is largely a matter of which part
is considered edible by humans.
For someone arrogant enough to think they know enough biology to
criticize evolution, you show precious little evidence of such
knowledge. I remember a great paper about the fact that ignorant
people were often unaware of their ignorance. Thank you for the
confirmation.
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
Aren't there plants that grow as herbaceously or tree like depending on
conditions. In any event trees include mono and di cots which is a major
division. IIUC an oak tree is closer to corn than it is to a pine tree.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<5f891eef-31b4-4bca...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
guscubed <james.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
I understand that coffee is in that category of fruit and nut. We throw
away the berry which is very high in antioxidants.
John Harshman
> In article <S_KdndyJQMA...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
> Aren't there plants that grow as herbaceously or tree like depending on
> conditions. In any event trees include mono and di cots which is a major
> division. IIUC an oak tree is closer to corn than it is to a pine tree.
>
guscubed
> and you will understand that problem that arises from your sloppy
> childish taxonomy. Many 'nuts', including walnut, almond, macadamia,
> are really drupes with inedible instead of fleshy pericarps. That is,
> 'nuts' are often really a subset of 'fruits' related to peaches and
> plums (also drupes). The difference is largely a matter of which part
> is considered edible by humans.
>
> For someone arrogant enough to think they know enough biology to
> criticize evolution, you show precious little evidence of such
> knowledge. I remember a great paper about the fact that ignorant
> people were often unaware of their ignorance. Thank you for the
> confirmation.
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's
Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" - now commonly
referred to as the Dunning-Kruger effect after the authors. Describes
someone so incompetent that they do not even have the wherewithal to
realise it, pretty much sums up Adman, Spintronic, Nashton, Nando and
Ray - hell it applies to every creationist I've ever met. A similar
theme is the arrogance of ignorance : otherwise know as, "I don't need
no book-learnin'"
Devils Advocaat
> On Nov 11, 10:24 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Nov, 15:42, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > [cut previous topic]
>
> > > > Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
> > > > interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
> > > what?
>
> > Perhaps you should try and answer my question, and not wander off on a
> > completely different course.
>
> > Try again, would you not agree that if two populations of organisms
> > cannot interbreed, that they are different species?
>
The question is simple enough.
Your evasion has been noted.
Ernest Major
<pr...@panix.com> writes
>In article <S_KdndyJQMA...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
>Aren't there plants that grow as herbaceously or tree like depending on
>conditions.
There are plants which behave as shrubs in warmer climates and as herbs
in colder climates. For example, Malva x clementii 'Barnsley'.
Similarly Malva sylvestris can be an annual, a biennial or a short lived
perennial. In this case it's the southern populations that are annual,
and the northern populations that are perennial.
> In any event trees include mono and di cots which is a major
>division.
Current opinion is that there are 8 major clades of angiosperms. The
basal lineage is Amborelllales, which is represented by a single species
of shrubs. Next comes Nymphales, which is composed of aquatic herbs.
Then Austrobaileyales, which are woody, and some of which are trees.
Together these comprise less that 1% of flowering plant species.
The relationships of the remaining 5 lineages are pooly resolved. The
lineages are Ceratophyllales, Chloranthales, magnoliids, eudicots and
monocots. Ceratophyllales are aquatic herbs. Chloranthales contains
trees and herbs. Magnoliids (3% of flowering plants) contain both trees
(magnolia, bay-laurel, Winter's bark) and herbs (pepper) . Eudicots (70%
of flowering plants) include plants of just about ever habit, including
several groups of trees. Monocots include 27% of flowering plants.
Whether they include trees is a terminological issue - the woody
monocots don't share the stem anatomy found in gymmosperms and other
angiosperms, but there are large woody monocots, such as palms and
screw-pines.
(It looks as if the broad structure of tree wood anatomy is conserved in
most seed plants, and is reactivated when a species grows big enough,
but that it was lost in monocots - the basal monocots are aquatic herbs
- and the woody monocots had to evolve new anatomical structures.
Perhaps we would see the same if water-lilies or hornworts ever evolved
into trees.)
>IIUC an oak tree is closer to corn than it is to a pine tree.
>
Oak and corn are both angiosperms, while pine is not. However oak
(eudicot) and corn (monocot) belong to different major clades of
angiosperms. Screw-pine is closer to corn (and oak) than to pine, and
ground-pine is close to oak (and corn) than to pine.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
<31f4c282-58ff-4ba2...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
I had never heard of her. Interesting woman.
Burkhard
> In article
> <31f4c282-58ff-4ba2-8413-f64606ebe...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Not even from one of the Neil Gaiman short stories? The one with the
spot -on account of academic conferences?
John Wilkins
<7644d004-3dc7-4789...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
I'm nominally aphasic. I don't remember names. This was something of a
liability when I was PR officer for a community college.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 11, 10:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 11, 8:32 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > [cut previous topic]
>> >> Would you not agree that if two populations of organisms cannot
>> >> interbreed, that they are different species?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > I suppose you could consider it a new breed or new species. But so
>> > what?
>>
>> > If a dog becomes reproductively isolated from the wolf, how does that
>> > change the fact that the dog descended from the wolf?
>>
>> > I can make the human claim "The Dog is now a New Species" because of
>> > reproductive isolation, but that does not change the fact that the dog
>> > is descended from the wolf does it?.
>>
>> Indeed it doesn't. Nor does Homo sapiens being a new species change the
>> fact that it's descended from an earlier species. That's our point, not
>> yours.
>
>Homo.S is the exception.
Nope.
>Is there no exceptions in science?
Not really.
>
>We have texts that say Homo.S was created.
The they are, like you, wrong.
>
>>
>> > Nothing in nature appears to go out of it's boundaries. A seed bearing
>> > fruit tree is not known to give rise to a nut bearing tree. But a seed
>> > bearing fruit tree has been shown to give rise to a different kind of
>> > seed bearing fruit tree.
>>
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
>It is not suprising that you want nature to conform to your ideas.
>
>A fruit tree has never been shown to give rise to a nut tree. Why is
>that?
Again, you are wrong.
>
>>
>> > Mankind has given rise to many variations of man. But is there even
>> > the slightest hint through the millions of generations of man so far
>> > that man is diverging or becoming reproductivly isolated? NTIKO.
>>
>> There haven't been millions of generations of man, if by "man" you mean
>> Homo sapiens. And since you allow that reproductive isolation can
>> evolve, the observation that humans haven't become reproductively
>> isolated is irrelevant to any point you may be trying to make.
>>
>> Then again, we know that humans and chimps are closely related by common
>> descent, so there must have been at least one speciation event in their
>> past, right?
>
>No. Man will give rise to a variation of another kind of man. A chimp
>will give rise to another kind of Chimp. Why do you so desire to
>conflate the two creatures?
Because, not very long ago, they share a common ancestor.
>
>>
>> > All of life seems to be following the exact principal in the bible
>> > which says: "each after his own kind".
>>
>> How do you know you have even interpreted that right? Maybe is just
>> means that children resemble their parents, and that hybridization
>> between species is rare. Maybe is says nothing about evolution. How do
>> you know?
>
>It says "His" kind. That would be after the male. Life was told to
>fill the earth. Each kind of life were to do that after his own kind.
But the fossil record proves you wrong.
>
>>
>> > The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>> > with what we observe happening in nature. It is the perverbial round
>> > peg being forced to fit the square hole.
>>
>> Yes, and we observe that the earth is flat, and that you can divide a
>> substance indefinitely. And we observe that mountains don't move, nor do
>> they erode ver much. Your short-term observations have no particular
>> relevance to a long term process
>
>Long or short term. Nothing has been shown to give rise to anything
>other then a variation of the same "kind" of life.
Wrong, as usual.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
Correctly there is a theory that explains the evolution of fish
through many, many, stages to eventually produce man.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:44:53 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:42:40 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> <allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> >The fish to Man or Ape to Man theory just does not follow or line up
>> >with what we observe happening in nature.
>
>> You know very well it does.
>
>You're kidding! There really is a Man or Ape to Man Theory?
Well given that man is an ape it follows that two human apes do
produce another human.
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Burkhard
>
>
>
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On 12 Nov., 09:52, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <31f4c282-58ff-4ba2-8413-f64606ebe...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > > On 11 Nov., 21:15, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > > > Piggybacking:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <b4f6bcc9-2fa4-4cf9-bc8d-3a5a55783...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > Jason Carlson <jcarlso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 11, 5:11 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> > > > > I really want to know the experimental protocols that enabled the
> > > > > voodou practitioners to find the zombie drug. "Does this make a living
> > > > > dead?" "Nope, killed him." "Does *this* make a living dead?"...
>
> > > > < Big Grin>
>
> > > > I'll ask a bokor I know to revive Zora Neale Hurston to ask her why
> > > > she never thought of this question!
>
> > > I had never heard of her. Interesting woman.
>
> > Not even from one of the Neil Gaiman short stories? The one with the
> > spot -on account of academic conferences?
>
> I'm nominally aphasic. I don't remember names. This was something of a
> liability when I was PR officer for a community college.
"Ladies and gentlemen from the Press, I can tell you today on behalf
of the the fat bloke with the beard who runs this place, that he
has asked the Sheila who does our finances if we have some leftover
cash, and we are delighted to inform you that after due consideration
of our cash flow a contract was given to a chap in a green suit to
build a new lecture theatre. We are looking forward to...."?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow. You guys will grab at any straw to make your arguments appear to
be valid.
Feel free to get back to me what a fruit tree can give rise to
something like an oak tree. OK.
Was that simple enough to understand?
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
heh...
None of you dumb asses can address my point I see. Instead you attack
the poster since you are incapable of attacking the point.
Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
oak tree? Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
tree? The answer is No.
Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
anyway; common sense:
I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
not the same "kind" of life. Therefore a fruit tree will never give
rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
you wish to apply to it.
Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
varieties of evergreens.
Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
evergreen. Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups. But no
one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
observed. The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
far is variation of the same kind of life. But guess what? That just
so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says. In the Bible
it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
"Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
no science needed. How about THAT.
Finally, some real questions should be asked at this point. Such as:
Can one become so educated that they become incompetent? So
Incompetent that they can no longer make even the simplest of
observations that connect to the real world? Can one become so
egotistical and so incompetent from their 'book-learning' that they do
not even have the wherewithal to realize it?
Judging from what I read in this very tread alone, the answer can only
be a resounding: "Yes".
Many of you are 'proof-positive' that the more one can learn the
stupider one can become. I guess that is why the bibnle says too much
learning is not good for ya.
Here are some quotes to ponder:
Great men are not always wise. (Job 32:9)
"Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no
longer knows how to receive counsel." (Ecclesiastes)
thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, acknowledge openly
joyfully to Your honor that you have hidden these things from the
wise , clever and learned, and revealed them to babies." (Matthew, ch.
11, vs. 25)
and then Festus cried out loudly, Paul you are mad. Your great
learning is driving you insane.' " (Acts, 26 v. 24)
In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge
increaseth sorrow.
HTH
raven1
You do realize that you just lucidly demonstrated guscubed's point,
right?
hersheyh
The straw, of course, is that everyone but you recognizes that you are
using kindergarten taxonomy in a scientific argument. That is, you
are using vague words that are mostly common usage terms without rigor
or consistency. 'Fruit' and 'nut' and 'tree' are words of basically
common usage, although fruit has a technical meaning. The common usage
is mostly based on the utility of parts of the reproductive product of
angiosperm fruit or gymnosperm seeds (aka pine nuts) plants to
humans. The terms 'fruit' and 'nut' are not taxonomic opposites. All
nuts are fruits.
>
> Feel free to get back to me what a fruit tree can give rise to
> something like an oak tree. OK.
Technically, an acorn *is* a fruit (a ripened ovary) as well as a
'true' nut. Nuts are technically fruits. A nut may be defined as a
one-seeded fruit with a hard pericarp (ripened ovary wall). But the
term 'nut' is often colloquially used to refer to drupes (members of
the rose family include both almonds and peaches as well as rosehips,
but walnuts are also drupes) and even certain legumes (peanuts) as
well as the larger seeds of pine trees (pine nuts).
> Was that simple enough to understand?
It is quite obvious that you are stuck on kindergarten taxonomy here.
The plant equivalent of saying "bug", "doggie", "worm", "horsie", and
"kitty". It is impossible to be simple enough for you to understand
biology, oh winner of the Dunning-Kruger Prize.
Burkhard
> On Nov 11, 11:29 pm, guscubed <james.prenderg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> heh...
> None of you dumb asses can address my point I see.
Part of the answers were that you don't even ask a question, since
your caregories like "fruit tree" etc are scientifially meaningless.
Instead you attack
> the poster since you are incapable of attacking the point.
>
> Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
> oak tree?
And it is not something the ToE predicts to happen, so what?
>Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
> tree? The answer is No.
>
Since the fruit trees that we know are the descendants from things
that did not look like fruits trees, yes - but you of course reject
the relevant evidence.
> Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
> your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
> anyway; common sense:
>
> I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
> But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
> not the same "kind" of life. Therefore a fruit tree will never give
> rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
> regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
> you wish to apply to it.
Why do you think the theory of evolution has a problem with the notion
that different species (leaving aside, as pointed out to you, "fruit
tree", is neither a kind nor a species) are more closely related to
each other than others? In fact, it is a prediction of the theory -
but you never really got the hang of the nested hierarchies, did you?
Equally, the ToE predicts that exchange of parts between more closely
related species is more likely to be successful than between less
related species - which is also why we work on using at some point
pigs hearts for human transplants, not fish hearts.
>
> Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
> trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
> mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
> varieties of evergreens.
>
> Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
> evergreen. Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
> anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
> evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
Because the time is far too short for that, the changes are far too
gradual to be easily observed, and species taht are well adapted to
their environment _need not_ change at all
>
> As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
> place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups. But no
> one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
> observed.
You have been given numerous examples of speciation.
If you insist on more dramatic changes, don't call them speciation
which has a precise meaning.
The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
> far is variation of the same kind of life. But guess what? That just
> so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says. In the Bible
> it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
> "Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
> happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
> no science needed. How about THAT.
Most people here are perfectly happy to accept the idea that the only
thing we can proof so far is micoevolution within the kind of "living
things".
<snip drivel>
Kermit
You've been given links to much evidence, in this thread and others,
which you have ignored.
You have asked bizarre questions, often but not always depending on
your ignorance of scientific methodology in general and evolutionary
science in particular.
I see that you have not responded to the observation that ferns
preceded gymnosperms by a wide margin. You have not even acknowledged
that "fruit tree" is not a biological category.
>
> Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
> oak tree? Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
> tree? The answer is No.
How about pre-ferns evolving into fruit trees?
Where in evolutionary theory is it stated or implied that any
currently existing group s of species (lumped together by human
edibility!) can evolve into any other specified and existing group of
species?
I prayed for chocolate pudding last night, and didn't get any. Clear
proof there is no god named Yahweh.
>
> Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
> your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
> anyway; common sense:
Common sense said that the Earth was clearly the middle of the
universe. And flat.
>
> I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
> But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
> not the same "kind" of life.
You haven't yet defined kind. Please do so.
> Therefore a fruit tree will never give
> rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
> regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
> you wish to apply to it.
Please explain why you think the inability of two currently very
different species of trees to graft implies in any way that evolution
doesn't happen? This may come as a shock, but the evidence indicates
that species change into very different species over time, and often
split into two or more lineages. Why would any sane person think that
they could take grafts (or reproduce with) the others?
>
> Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
> trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
> mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
> varieties of evergreens.
>
> Yet in all that time,
A few thousand years. what do you have that was written 100,000,000
years ago?
So you seem to think that all of the current species were on the ark.
You are not one of those who think that hyper-evolution produced the
current millions of species from the hundreds of "kinds" on the ark.
Noted for future reference.
> from then to now, no one has observed an
> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
> evergreen. Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
> anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
> evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
>
There is overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
Apparently you think that Rome wasn't built by humans. After all,
nobody ever witnesses it being built from scratch.
> As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
> place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups. But no
> one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
> observed.
Yes, it has been, but of course only in very short-lived species.
That's OK, however, because the evidence for it covers several fields
of science and is quite clear.
You, on the other hand, think that nothing has happened which takes
longer than a human life-span. This is truly a peculiar assertion.
> The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
> far is variation of the same kind of life.
Fortunately, scientists are not constrained to reproducing events in a
lab, or they would know nothing but a little chemistry. I suppose you
also think that we can never determine how an unwitnessed crime was
committed, nor by whom.
> But guess what? That just
> so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says.
And by book-larnin' you mean "just made shit up"?
> In the Bible
> it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
> "Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
> happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
> no science needed. How about THAT.
You have any verifiable evidence supporting that?
If a dog ever gave birth to a cat naturally it would present terrific
problems for biology. You'll let us know when that happens, won't you?
>
> Finally, some real questions should be asked at this point. Such as:
> Can one become so educated that they become incompetent?
No, but brain-washing can do this.
Also fear, neurochemical imbalances, and simple but profound
ignorance.
Possibly certain personality traits too, such as arrogance or
laziness.
> So
> Incompetent that they can no longer make even the simplest of
> observations that connect to the real world?
Bwahahahahahahahhaha!
You have told us over and over that you see a "real world" more real
than this one, and disdain any evidence that contradicts your various
claims. Are you taking that all back now, have you changed your mind?
>Can one become so
> egotistical and so incompetent from their 'book-learning' that they do
> not even have the wherewithal to realize it?
Only if it's insufficient. In the few fields in which I have a modicum
of knowledge, the clear trend is: as people become more educated in a
field (gardening, martial arts, painting, evolutionary science), they
become more and more painfully aware of how much more there is to
learn.
It tends to be those who are most ignorant who are most arrogant, and
will think that the decades some folks have spent in a field does *not
give those people any significant knowledge. In martial arts, the
beginner impresses the teacher not by his knowledge, but by his
willingness to learn, and the energy he applies to it. This applies, I
think, to most fields of human activity more complicated than tic-tac-
toe.
>
> Judging from what I read in this very tread alone, the answer can only
> be a resounding: "Yes".
Tsk. We do not agree with you, because we arrogantly point to actual
evidence, and clearly we are unrealistic and "too educated".
>
> Many of you are 'proof-positive' that the more one can learn the
> stupider one can become. I guess that is why the bibnle says too much
> learning is not good for ya.
Some cynical people might suggest it's because it's hard to put the
shuck on experienced or educated folks. Hucksters can't con the rubes
unless they're idiots - or ignorant.
I would never serve a god that requires me to be ignorant. You are not
the first Creationist, nor will you be the last, that have accused
scientists of being "too educated".
>
> Here are some quotes to ponder:
>
> Great men are not always wise. (Job 32:9)
Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions.
-- Cullen Hightower
>
> "Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no
> longer knows how to receive counsel." (Ecclesiastes)
"You cannot receive tea unless your cup is empty"
-- Zen saying
>
> thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, acknowledge openly
> joyfully to Your honor that you have hidden these things from the
> wise , clever and learned, and revealed them to babies." (Matthew, ch.
> 11, vs. 25)
Ah. I see now. You claim the wisdom and knowledge of babies, and deny
being wise, clever, or educated.
>
> and then Festus cried out loudly, Paul you are mad. Your great
> learning is driving you insane.' " (Acts, 26 v. 24)
"But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the
words of truth and soberness. "
Acts 26:25
You even quotemine the bible! But that's what Creationists do.
>
> In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge
> increaseth sorrow.
>
"To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind
must be strengthened by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Kermit
> HTH
hersheyh
Using the technical definition of "fruit", oak trees *are* fruit trees
and the acorn is its fruit. The acorn is a true nut because its
pericarp is hard rather than fleshy. An almond is not, technically, a
'true' nut because its mesocarp is fleshy rather than hard like its
pericarp -- the shell surrounding the edible seed. The almond
mesocarp is not edible by humans. A peach, which is closely related
structurally to the almond, both being in the rose family, has an
inedible 'nut' in the hard pericarp (pit) and a fleshy mesocarp that
is edible by humans. So the difference between a fruit like a peach
and a nut like an almond is which part is edible and the degree of
fleshiness of its mesocarp. Are you claiming that it is somehow
impossible to change the fleshiness of a mesocarp?
> Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
> your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
> anyway; common sense:
>
> I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
Depends on the 'fruit' trees you choose. I would imagine that all the
ones you choose are related to within the rose family or within the
citrus family.
> But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
> not the same "kind" of life. Therefore a fruit tree will never give
> rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
That is, even if true, not evidence enough to support your claim. It
is only evidence that oak trees (which *are*, technically, fruit-
bearing trees, remember) are sufficiently diverged from the trees you
tried to prevent graft success. That is the botanical equivalent of
the claim that if a fish doesn't give birth to a human, evolution is
not true.
> regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
> you wish to apply to it.
Dunning-Kruger. Here the all-seeing one proclaims that he is
scientifically ignorant and just plain in-general ignorant and proud
of it. Don't go confusing him with any of that there "scientific
mumbo-jumbo" and "book-learnin" (except for the one Book, as read to
him by Preacher Billy Bob Joe).
>
> Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
> trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
> mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
> varieties of evergreens.
>
> Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
> evergreen.
'Evergreen' is not the same as gymnosperm, or conifers, or whatever
you are trying to say. There are many 'evergreen' trees in the
tropics. Just some more of that there "scientific mumbo-jumbo" and
"book learnin'" you are ignorant of.
> Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
> anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
> evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
Have you tried to see if there was such evidence of divergence in the
recent geological past? Or would that require understanding some more
of that "scientific mumbo-jumbo" and actually doing some of that there
"book learnin" that you so despise. Arrogant in your ignorance, are
you? Dunning-Kruger Prize material.
> As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
> place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups. But no
> one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
> observed.
Speciation has been observed *and* created in the lab. But then that
was using the 'technical' (aka, "scientific mumbo-jumbo") definition
of species rather than the extremely flexible definition of 'kind'.
> The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
> far is variation of the same kind of life.
What do you think "descent with modification" means? That for
evolution to be true, that a pig (used as a technical term for a
particular species, not colloquially) must give birth to your child?
> But guess what? That just
> so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says. In the Bible
> it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
> "Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
> happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
> no science needed. How about THAT.
Evolution also works by "each after his own kind", all the way until
speciation occurs.
>
> Finally, some real questions should be asked at this point. Such as:
> Can one become so educated that they become incompetent?
It is sooooo much easier to remain incompetent by not becoming
educated. Keep on avoiding all that there "scientific mumbo-jumbo"
and "book learnin" and you will keep on being incompetent, which will
allow you to be arrogant in your ignorance.
> So
> Incompetent that they can no longer make even the simplest of
> observations that connect to the real world? Can one become so
> egotistical and so incompetent from their 'book-learning' that they do
> not even have the wherewithal to realize it?
Certainly would be worth the effort to try in your case. Clearly, it
is sooo much easier to be both egotistical and incompetent by not
trying that there "book learnin" stuff that might help you understand
that darned hard "scientific mumbo-jumbo". A lot easier to spew out
uneducated, incompetent nonsense and proudly proclaim that you "don't
need no education" to express your views, which must be right just
*because* you are an uneducated dunce.
>
> Judging from what I read in this very tread alone, the answer can only
> be a resounding: "Yes".
>
> Many of you are 'proof-positive' that the more one can learn the
> stupider one can become. I guess that is why the bibnle says too much
> learning is not good for ya.
>
> Here are some quotes to ponder:
>
> Great men are not always wise. (Job 32:9)
>
> "Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no
> longer knows how to receive counsel." (Ecclesiastes)
>
> thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, acknowledge openly
> joyfully to Your honor that you have hidden these things from the
> wise , clever and learned, and revealed them to babies." (Matthew, ch.
> 11, vs. 25)
>
> and then Festus cried out loudly, Paul you are mad. Your great
> learning is driving you insane.' " (Acts, 26 v. 24)
Ignorant and proud of it, aren't you? And to think that Christianity
actually once did support literacy (that there book learnin) and
scientific mumbo-jumbo.
Ernest Major
<a87714be-4d62-44da...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> writes
>> Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
>> oak tree? Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
>> tree? The answer is No.
>
>Using the technical definition of "fruit", oak trees *are* fruit trees
>and the acorn is its fruit. The acorn is a true nut because its
>pericarp is hard rather than fleshy. An almond is not, technically, a
>'true' nut because its mesocarp is fleshy rather than hard like its
>pericarp -- the shell surrounding the edible seed. The almond mesocarp
>is not edible by humans. A peach, which is closely related
>structurally to the almond, both being in the rose family, has an
>inedible 'nut' in the hard pericarp (pit) and a fleshy mesocarp that is
>edible by humans. So the difference between a fruit like a peach and a
>nut like an almond is which part is edible and the degree of fleshiness
>of its mesocarp. Are you claiming that it is somehow impossible to
>change the fleshiness of a mesocarp?
For another example, this time among herbaceous plants, strawberries
(Fragaria) are distinguished from cinquefoils (Potentilla) by the former
bearing "berries" (technically the strawberry is a false fruit) and the
latter bearing dry fruits. It turns out that some cinquefoils are more
closely related to strawberries than to other cinquefoils. Mabberly
proposed sinking Fragaria in Potentilla (Telopea 9(4): 793-802 (2002);
other workers segregate various groups of Potentilla more closely
related to Fragaria into separate genera. Among these Potentilla
(Comarum) palustris - the marsh cinquefoil - has been crossed with
Fragaria x ananassa and polyploidised to produce the synthetic decaploid
species known as Fragaria rosea (pink-flowered strawberry). So we have
an instance of interbreeding between a "fruit-bearing" plant and a
dry-fruited plant, not to mention an artificial speciation event.
--
alias Ernest Major
Boikat
I guess you don't read the replies to your posts.
>
> Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
> oak tree? Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
> tree? The answer is No.
Probably because "fruit tree" is a vague term, as far as trees go.
Asside from that, your challenge is a strawman argument.
>
> Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
> your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
> anyway; common sense:
Sorry, you have none, apparently.
>
> I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
> But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
> not the same "kind" of life.
Have you actually tried that?
> Therefore a fruit tree will never give
> rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
Non-sequitur.
> regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
> you wish to apply to it.
Ah, the smarmy dismissal of
scientific mumbo-jumbo" and "book learnin'", the things that you do
not understand, dispise, and demonstrate your disdain for science by.
Damn, you just love making yourself look like a 'tard.
>
> Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
> trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees.
Oh, wow! Nobody would have notice that without "guidance from
above"! Damn, you're a gullible twit.
>He
> mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
> varieties of evergreens.
Only 14? Someone must have been holding ut on poor ol' Enoch.
>
> Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
> evergreen.
Why would it. After all, you're only talking about a few thousand
years.
> Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
> anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
> evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
Time, fuctard.
>
> As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
> place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups.
Macro evolution is simply accumilation od micro-volution over time,
'tard-boy. For all intents, there is no real difference, except
speciation itself, is considered "macro-evolution", and since
speciation has been observed, so has macro-evolution.
> But no
> one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
> observed.
You are a liar. Citations have been provided for your edification and
education several times already. The fact that you still claim that
speciation has not been observed shows that you are bothe stupid, and
a liar.
> The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
> far is variation of the same kind of life.
That is still evolution. Your imaginary "'tard" version of evolution
is meaningless, and actually, if directly observed, would *disprove*
evolution.
> But guess what?
Your IQ has dropped another 10% since your last evaluation?
> That just
> so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says.
What does your "book learnin'" of the Bible say about DNA?
> In the Bible
> it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
> "Each after his own kind";
Which it does, since all life on Earth can be arguably be defined as
"Ooe kind"; Carbon based, self replicating. Unless, of course, you
have a more stringent definition of "kind". Care to post it?
> and that is exactly what any of us can see
> happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
> no science needed. How about THAT.
So, the Bible, by and large, is irrelevent.
>
> Finally, some real questions should be asked at this point. Such as:
How stupid does adman think everyone is?
Will adman ever grow up, emotionally, and accept reality?
> Can one become so educated that they become incompetent? So
> Incompetent that they can no longer make even the simplest of
> observations that connect to the real world?
There's that contempt for those better educated than you.
> Can one become so
> egotistical and so incompetent from their 'book-learning' that they do
> not even have the wherewithal to realize it?
Like your ego and your "book learnin'" of the Bible?
>
> Judging from what I read in this very tread alone, the answer can only
> be a resounding: "Yes".
Yup! You are so convinced that your "book learnin'" of the Bible is
soooooo great, that you deny reality.
>
> Many of you are 'proof-positive' that the more one can learn the
> stupider one can become. I guess that is why the bibnle says too much
> learning is not good for ya.
There you hae it, the Bible preaches stupidity. Well, at least you're
following that rule. Now if you could only get the part about being a
liar is a *bad thing*.
>
> Here are some quotes to ponder:
>
> Great men are not always wise. (Job 32:9)
Wise men are not always great. (Boikat)
>
> "Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no
> longer knows how to receive counsel." (Ecclesiastes)
A fool and his money are soon parted, unless she's a babe and she also
springs for the large Diet Coke and large popcorn after I buy the
tickets. (Boikat)
>
> thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, acknowledge openly
> joyfully to Your honor that you have hidden these things from the
> wise , clever and learned, and revealed them to babies." (Matthew, ch.
> 11, vs. 25)
Y'know, for someone who claims they never claimed they was a
"Christian", you're doing a pretty good job of showing that you are a
liar, or a hypocrite. (Boikat)
Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and
honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
>
> and then Festus cried out loudly, Paul you are mad. Your great
> learning is driving you insane.' " (Acts, 26 v. 24)
Knowledge is power. (I wish I had thought that one up! (Boikat))
>
> In much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge
> increaseth sorrow.
Probably because he realixes what a fool he was when he thought the
"ancient texts" held the "absolute truth", or something close to it.
(Boikat).
>
> HTH-
Yes, it once again demonstrated your arrogance and ignorance.
Boikat
Ye Old One
>Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
>oak tree? Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
>tree? The answer is No.
Yes. Some fruit trees have produced sports that are not fruiting.
>
>Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
>your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
>anyway; common sense:
>
>I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
Only if they are fairly closely related.
>But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why.
Because they are not closely related.
>Because they are
>not the same "kind" of life.
Define "kind".
?Therefore a fruit tree will never give
>rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
>regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
>you wish to apply to it.
What happens in the future is unknown. What happened in the past is
known.
>Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
>trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
>mentions that in his pre-flood
There was no flood.
> area of the world, there were 14
>varieties of evergreens.
How many thousand did he miss?
>
>Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
>evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
>evergreen. Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
>anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
>evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
But according to you none of the trees we have today existed back then
- they all died in your flood.
>
>As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
>place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups.
No they can not.
> But no
>one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
>observed.
Observed in millions of cases.
>The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
>far is variation of the same kind of life. But guess what? That just
>so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says.
We know you are incapable of learning, from books or otherwise.
> In the Bible
>it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
>"Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
>happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
>no science needed. How about THAT.
Yep, how about that stupidity of yours.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Oh my, the irony!
>
> Has it been shown with evidence that a fruit tree can give rise to an
> oak tree?
Has any evolutionary biologist ever predicted that it would?
> Or anything for that matter, that is clearly not a fruit
> tree? The answer is No.
Quite so, and it's what evolutionary theory predicts. One of the
strongest strands of evidence for evolution is the fact that if we
classify organisms biologically, they fit into a nested hierarchy.
That means that any descendants of fruit trees will still be,
biologically speaking, fruit trees. Do you think that humans aren't
mammals?
> Now here is the tricky part for those of you that are SO educated with
> your "book-learning" that you do not have, nor could you apply it
> anyway; common sense:
>
> I can graft two fruit trees today and see the results within a year.
> But I cannot graft a fruit tree and an oak tree. Why. Because they are
> not the same "kind" of life.
Biologists - you know, the people who actually *study* organisms -
will tell you that it is because they are distantly related. Bearing
in mind that no creationist can produce any biologically meaningful
definition of "kinds", why should anyone accept your explanation
rather than that of those who know the subject?
> Therefore a fruit tree will never give
> rise to anything other then a variation of another kind of fruit tree
> regardless of the amount of scientific mumbo-jumbo and book-learnin'
> you wish to apply to it.
This is a complete non sequitur. Grafting a branch onto new stock is
not reproduction.
>
> Now, in the Book of Enoch, he describes the autumn season when most
> trees lose their leaves, with the exception of the evergreen trees. He
> mentions that in his pre-flood area of the world, there were 14
> varieties of evergreens.
Well bully for the Book of Enoch. I suggest that we have learned
rather a lot about biology over the past couple of millenia.
>
> Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
> evergreen.
Quite so. Your point?
> Surely in ALL that time we would notice something,
> anything, suggesting divergence speciation taking place within the
> evergreen. But there is none. .Why is THAT?
Because it hasn't happened, or because nobody was there to observe it
happening.
What's your explanation, and how can we test it?
>
> As I said many times before, anyone can show micro-evolution taking
> place in their own back yard with a garden or a litter of pups. But no
> one can show speciation taking place on any level that can be
> observed.
The scientists who actually *study* such phenomena will tell you that
numerous observed instances of speciation are recorded in the
scientific literature. Bearing in mind that you have already shown
yourself to be not only ignorant of biology, but dogmatically
determined to remain ignorant, why should we not believe what the
people who actually *study* the subject say rather than what you say?
> The only thing that has been shown to take place in a lab so
> far is variation of the same kind of life.
Quite so. It's what evolutionary theory predicts. What has also
happened in the lab is that the variation in populations of organisms
has progressed to the extent that they are no longer capable of
breeding freely with their parent stock. This, in biological terms,
means that a new species has originated.
> But guess what? That just
> so happens to be what my book-learnin' of the bible says. In the Bible
> it says Life was to put forth abundantly and fill the earth. How?
> "Each after his own kind"; and that is exactly what any of us can see
> happening for ourselves in any generation that has ever lived --with
> no science needed. How about THAT.
As a demonstration of dogmatic ignorance, it's fine. However, if you
took the time to learn something about science you would not make
yourself look so foolish.
>
> Finally, some real questions should be asked at this point. Such as:
> Can one become so educated that they become incompetent? So
> Incompetent that they can no longer make even the simplest of
> observations that connect to the real world?
SO what orignal observations have *you* made in the real world?
> Can one become so
> egotistical and so incompetent from their 'book-learning' that they do
> not even have the wherewithal to realize it?
You manage ego and incompetence *without* "book-learning".
Which evolutionary biologists do you think are "egotistical and
incompetent"? Perhaps you care to provide us with some evidence to
support your rather startling claim that if is educated in a subject
one becomes incompetent.
>
> Judging from what I read in this very tread alone, the answer can only
> be a resounding: "Yes".
>
> Many of you are 'proof-positive' that the more one can learn the
> stupider one can become. I guess that is why the bibnle says too much
> learning is not good for ya.
Which is no doubt why you've decided to wallow in your own ignorance.
Beats making the effort to educate yourself, and you can feel the
great sense of superiority which comes from believing the
sanctimonious claptrap you spout.
Just as well you are not typical of the Christians I know.
RF
Hatunen
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 10:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Here your ignorance of biology is clear. A nut is a seed. "Fruit tree"
>> isn't a group at all, having members from many families, other members
>> of which do not bear fruit. For that matter, "tree" isn't a group
>> either, and the same family can contain both trees and herbaceous
>> species. The boundaries you talk about are illusory.
>
>It is not suprising that you want nature to conform to your ideas.
>
>A fruit tree has never been shown to give rise to a nut tree. Why is
>that?
A nut tree is a fruit tree; a nut is a seed from the fruit of a
nut tree. No difference really between a nut tree and a peach
tree, in that regard, save for edibility of the fruit itself.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Ernest Major
<d558f986-b72b-43ae...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> writes
>>
>> Yet in all that time, from then to now, no one has observed an
>> evergreen giving rise to anything other then a variation of another
>> evergreen.
>
>Why would it. After all, you're only talking about a few thousand
>years.
It appears that he is unaware of facultative evergreens, such as
Ligustrum vulgare, Ligustrum ovalifolium and Malva x clementii - plants
which are evergreen in some climate (or some years) and deciduous in
others.
Even apart from that I don't share his confidence that no one has ever
seen a deciduous plant derived from an evergreen one. There are several
genera in which both evergreen and deciduous species are present (e.g.
Lonicera, Viburnum, Quercus, Prunus, Hibiscus) and it is not immediately
obvious that there are no observations of a deciduous plant arising from
an evergreen parentage.
--
alias Ernest Major
Devils Advocaat
> heh...
> None of you dumb asses can address my point I see. Instead you attack
> the poster since you are incapable of attacking the point.
>
I addressed your opening post, and made reference to the Wikipedia
sources you took your extracts from and yet you have chosen not to
respond to that post of mine.
And you have avoided answering my question which I present here
verbatim; would you not agree that if two populations of organisms
cannot interbreed, that they are different species?
Perhaps you could have the decency to address both of those previous
posts.
hersheyh
> On Nov 12, 8:50 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
Christians should aspire, the shepherd undoubtedly preferring that the
sheep remain ignorant of the lamb stew he is eating and the wool coat
he is wearing]
>
> > Here are some quotes to ponder:
>
> > Great men are not always wise. (Job 32:9)
>
> Wise men are not always great. (Boikat)
>
>
> > "Better is a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king, who no
> > longer knows how to receive counsel." (Ecclesiastes)
>
> A fool and his money are soon parted, unless she's a babe and she also
> springs for the large Diet Coke and large popcorn after I buy the
> tickets. (Boikat)
>
be an old, rich, and foolish king than a wise and poor youth who dies
poor, wise and young. Pass me the wine and roast beef before I meet
my mistress and trophy wife.
> > thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, acknowledge openly
> > joyfully to Your honor that you have hidden these things from the
> > wise , clever and learned, and revealed them to babies." (Matthew, ch.
> > 11, vs. 25)
>
> Y'know, for someone who claims they never claimed they was a
> "Christian", you're doing a pretty good job of showing that you are a
> liar, or a hypocrite. (Boikat)
>
> Matthew 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and
> honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
>
>
>
> > and then Festus cried out loudly, Paul you are mad. Your great
> > learning is driving you insane.' " (Acts, 26 v. 24)
>
> Knowledge is power. (I wish I had thought that one up! (Boikat))
>
Don't worry, all-seeing-one. It is not your great learning that has
driven you insane. Not a chance.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Nashton <na...@na.ca>:
>bpuharic wrote:
>
>
>Go away you nauseating nobody.
No, he didn't; we all leave that sort of juvenile and
antisocial comment to you, since you have so much practice.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
<snip>
>We have texts that say Homo.S was created.
So? We have texts which say quite a few things, many of them
contradictory. Without confirmatory physical evidence all
are worthless as science, which, BTW, they were never
intended to be.
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
FWIW, it looks to me as if he's using "evergreen" in the
colloquial sense as an alternate for "conifer", rather than
literally. And in the restricted meaning of "trees with
needles which don't lose them seasonally".
John Stockwell
> of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> hypotheses.[2]
>
> Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> population of human creatures? NTIR
>
> Why yes. I think we have a match.
First of all, it is the available data that set the high bar for what
we consider good science and what we consider bad science.
That high bar for human evolution has been going up steadily
as more hominid fossils are found.
The theory of evolution predicts that we will be able to find fossil
that fit the bill of being intermediats
between apes and humans, and that is what has been
found.
These fossils should not exist according to the tennets of
creationism.
>
> Evolution therefore must be Voodoo Science. :D
>
> Source: Wikipedia
>
> --
> Discovering Voodoo Science with...
>
> The All Seeing I
John Stockwell
> On Nov 11, 5:19 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 6:11 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is Voodoo Science anyway?
>
> > > Voodoo science, is a neologism referring to research that falls short
> > > of adhering to the scientific method.
>
> > > Well, what is the Scientific Method then.
>
> > > A method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical
> > > and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
> > > [1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through
> > > observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of
> > > hypotheses.[2]
>
> > > Has anyone observed a population of ape like creatures evolve into a
> > > population of human creatures? NTIR
>
> > > Why yes. I think we have a match.
>
>
> > > Source: Wikipedia
>
> > > --
> > > Discovering Voodoo Science with...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The
> > basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the
> > argument and to another topic."
> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
>
> > Has anyone ever observed an evolutionary biologist claiming that each
> > and every speciation event must be observed in real-time? NTIR.
>
> > Therefore, AS-I can only argue against pathetic straw men.
>
> > Chris
>
> So evolution does not need an observable testable model for
> speciation?
>
> Didn't you just pove my point?
No, he didn't. You just proved his by demonstrating that you do
not understand science. Science does not have to dance to your
tune, Mr. Strawman demolisher.
-John
Ernest Major
<nos...@buzz.off> writes
He has cited the Book of Enoch on this topic. The Book of Enoch has
"Observe and see how (in the winter) all the trees seem as though they
had withered and shed all their leaves, except fourteen trees, which do
not lose their foliage but retain their old foliage from two to three
years till the new comes".
Give that evergreen broadleaf trees are present in the Flora of Israel
(Arbutus andrachne, Laurus nobilis, Olea europaea, Ficus carica) and as
there are not 14 species of conifer in the region (8 in Israel, but
there's at least one more in Lebanon) it would seem unreasonable to
interpret The Book of Enoch are referring here solely to conifers.
--
alias Ernest Major