A Puzzle for the Creationists
Devils Advocaat
All-seeing-I
> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
breathing through their skin is not uncommon among some amphibians.
How is that a puzzle?
Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
Ken
> Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
Looking like and being an idiot doesn't bother you in the least, does
it, ASSman?
Inez
> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
Can you explain?
Paul Ciszek
In article <cac88761-40a6-4884...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
"God made it."
Lather, rinse, repeat.
--
Please reply to: | "Evolution is a theory that accounts
pciszek at panix dot com | for variety, not superiority."
Autoreply has been disabled | -- Joan Pontius
David Hare-Scott
He loves it, like the class clown in junior high who disrupts every lesson
so he can have his attentiuon fix.
David
Devils Advocaat
They are completely lacking lungs.
Devils Advocaat
Evasion noted.
These particular salamanders are completely lungless.
Do you see the puzzle now?
By the way of the 6,374 know species of frogs, toad, salamanders,
newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
6.03%.
One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
So being a lungless amphibian is not a common trait, and there is an
evolutionary explanation for this.
But you haven't even tried to offer an explanation from the
creationist point of view.
John Harshman
All-seeing-I
> On 6 Jan, 17:14, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
> > breathing through their skin is not uncommon among some amphibians.
>
> > How is that a puzzle?
>
> > Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
>
> Evasion noted.
>
> These particular salamanders are completely lungless.
>
> Do you see the puzzle now?
There was no evasion Evo-Freak. Yopu said: You just said
"Plethodontidae". Of which there are hundrerds that are "lungless".
NOW, you dishonestly move the goal posts
>
> By the way of the 6,374 know species of frogs, toad, salamanders,
> newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
> 6.03%.
>
> One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
> salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
>
> So being a lungless amphibian is not a common trait, and there is an
> evolutionary explanation for this.
>
> But you haven't even tried to offer an explanation from the
> creationist point of view.
I would NOT call 384 "lungless" creatures anything other then
"common". One or two of them and you would have a point.
Just more lying from the evolutionists.
All-seeing-I
Was this supose to be an "I gotcha"?
They still breath air through their skin IIRC.
What was your point
Is that suppose to be evidence of speciation? evolution? a different
design from the others? Or were you saying your Aunt Myrtle is a lung-
less fish?
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 17:14, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
> > > breathing through their skin is not uncommon among some amphibians.
>
> > > How is that a puzzle?
>
> > > Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
>
> > Evasion noted.
>
> > These particular salamanders are completely lungless.
>
> > Do you see the puzzle now?
>
> There was no evasion Evo-Freak. Yopu said: You just said
> "Plethodontidae". Of which there are hundrerds that are "lungless".
>
> NOW, you dishonestly move the goal posts
>
point of view.
You failed to offer one, which is an evasion in anyone's books.
And I have not moved the goalposts.
>
> > By the way of the 6,374 know species of frogs, toad, salamanders,
> > newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
> > 6.03%.
>
> > One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
> > salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
>
> > So being a lungless amphibian is not a common trait, and there is an
> > evolutionary explanation for this.
>
> > But you haven't even tried to offer an explanation from the
> > creationist point of view.
>
> I would NOT call 384 "lungless" creatures anything other then
> "common". One or two of them and you would have a point.
>
> Just more lying from the evolutionists.
So you call 383 amphibian species out of 6,374 (which is only 6.03% of
the total number of amphibian species) common do you?
Care to explain how you come to that conclusion?
And care to explain what if anything in my postings of this thread can
be considered to be a lie?
Devils Advocaat
> On Jan 6, 4:16 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
> > > I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
> > > Can you explain?
>
> > They are completely lacking lungs.
>
> Was this supose to be an "I gotcha"?
Not at all.
>
> They still breath air through their skin IIRC.
>
> What was your point
>
> Is that suppose to be evidence of speciation? evolution? a different
> design from the others? Or were you saying your Aunt Myrtle is a lung-
> less fish?
Did I say anything about speciation, evolution or design? No.
I asked for an explanation from the creationist position, and I have
yet to see one offered.
Devils Advocaat
It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
lungless.
And I was hoping that the creationists here would be able to offer an
explanation of this lunglessness from their particular point of view.
Which so far hasn't happened.
John Harshman
> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>>>> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
>>>> Can you explain?
>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
>> Go on. So?
>
> It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
>
> As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
> lungless.
Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it explicit.
> And I was hoping that the creationists here would be able to offer an
> explanation of this lunglessness from their particular point of view.
>
> Which so far hasn't happened.
Hey, I can do it. God created some amphibians without lungs, because
they didn't need them. How is this any sort of problem for creationists,
except in so far as an explanation of anything at all is a problem for
creationists?
John Harshman
and evolutionists, seems to know what you're getting at here.
Eric Root
So, no explanation?
Eric Root
Eric Root
What kind of idiot thinks that a request for information even _can_ be
a lie?
Eric Root
Eric Root
Maybe he just wants to see if a creationist can form a scientific
argument? I, for one, would never accept creastionism until they
could make well-formed scientific arguments, complete with proposed
mechanisms that meshed with what we know of reality from other areas
of science. Scientists of all stripes would have to recognize it as
science, not religion.
Eric Root
John Harshman
Maybe. But I bet he brought up plethodontids in particular because he
thinks they're especially difficult for creationists to explain.
Ignoring that question, what would be the nature of a creationist
explanation for any adaptive feature? How would it differ from an
evolutionary explanation? God made plethodontids without lungs because
that suited them for their environments. Or plethodontids lost lungs
because they were unnecessary. (There may be a fancier explanation that
I don't know about, which would be fun.) But Gould always said that
creation was as good an explanation for adaptation as selection was.
It's the panda's thumb we need evolution for.
Vend
> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
"Goddidit!"
or,
"They are still salamanders."
Seriously, creationism doesn't really attempts to provide causal
explanation for anything.
Christopher Denney
The creationist position would be to never have even found out they
were without lungs. Since scientific inquiry is the debil's work.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. I call 383 a lot.
one or two you would have a point. But you don't. There are three
HUNDRED and Eight-three.
--
This has been another 'accept the truth' moment, with:
Adman
Dan Listermann
"Eric Root" <er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:0d25d388-d507-424a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
.
Dan Listermann
.
Dan Listermann
"Vend" <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:13a75674-0ce2-462e...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It does not have to. Just ask them.
.
Devils Advocaat
I see, so you go from calling it "common" to calling it "a lot".
Even though in relation to the total number of amphibian species which
is 6374 the number 383 is just 6.03% of that total.
And you still cannot explain how you come to that conclusion.
Also you haven't explained what part of my postings in this thread you
consider to be a lie.
Why is that?
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>>>>> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
>>>>> Can you explain?
>>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
>>> Go on. So?
>> It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
>> As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
>> lungless.
>
>Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it explicit.
It's another piece of the nested hierarchy - an otherwise rare trait
being universal within a particular clade. The theory of evolution
explains this as a synapomorphy of the clade. Creationism doesn't, as
far as I can tell, have an explanation for the distribution of traits
among organisms.
(It took several posts before I could see what he was getting at.)
>
>> And I was hoping that the creationists here would be able to offer an
>> explanation of this lunglessness from their particular point of view.
>> Which so far hasn't happened.
>
>Hey, I can do it. God created some amphibians without lungs, because
>they didn't need them. How is this any sort of problem for
>creationists, except in so far as an explanation of anything at all is
>a problem for creationists?
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Devils Advocaat
> In message <5L-dnWgpYZngi9jWRVn_...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> writes
>
> >Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
> >>>>> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
> >>>>> Can you explain?
> >>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
> >>> Go on. So?
> >> �It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
> >> �As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
> >> lungless.
>
> >Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it explicit.
>
> It's another piece of the nested hierarchy - an otherwise rare trait
> being universal within a particular clade. The theory of evolution
> explains this as a synapomorphy of the clade. Creationism doesn't, as
> far as I can tell, have an explanation for the distribution of traits
> among organisms.
>
> (It took several posts before I could see what he was getting at.)
>
you know, comment on a topic and hope the class will pick it up and
run with it.
John Harshman
> In message <5L-dnWgpYZn...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>>>>>> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
>>>>>> Can you explain?
>>>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
>>>> Go on. So?
>>> It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
>>> As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
>>> lungless.
>>
>> Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it explicit.
>
> It's another piece of the nested hierarchy - an otherwise rare trait
> being universal within a particular clade. The theory of evolution
> explains this as a synapomorphy of the clade. Creationism doesn't, as
> far as I can tell, have an explanation for the distribution of traits
> among organisms.
>
> (It took several posts before I could see what he was getting at.)
But this is true for the distribution of any trait. Why plethodontids in
particular? If he's just talking about the existence of a nested
hierarchy, why not say so?
And of course there is no creationist explanation for a nested
hierarchy. The usual out is "common design", which explains anything and
nothing.
John Harshman
Run where, exactly?
hersheyh
Natural causation for *anything* is an atheistic plot, pure and
simple. Just ask Ray.
Victor Eijkhout
> I asked for an explanation from the creationist position, and I have
> yet to see one offered.
Easy. Since you can't evolve away your lungs that had to be specially
created.
Solved?
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Devils Advocaat
:P
John Harshman
who just don't get it.
Christopher Denney
> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 17:14, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
>
> > > How is that a puzzle?
>
> > > Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
>
> > Evasion noted.
>
> > These particular salamanders are completely lungless.
>
> > Do you see the puzzle now?
>
> There was no evasion Evo-Freak. Yopu said: You just said
> "Plethodontidae". Of which there are hundrerds that are "lungless".
>
> NOW, you dishonestly move the goal posts
>
>
>
> > newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
> > 6.03%.
>
> > One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
> > salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
>
> > So being a lungless amphibian is not a common trait, and there is an
> > evolutionary explanation for this.
>
> > But you haven't even tried to offer an explanation from the
> > creationist point of view.
>
> I would NOT call 384 "lungless" creatures anything other then
> "common". One or two of them and you would have a point.
>
> Just more lying from the evolutionists.
So you wanted to demonstrated your ignorance of math as well?
Common is a comparative, simple numbers don't qualify something as
common, only ratios.
If you had over six thousand grains of sand of which all but four
hundred were white, would you also call the non-white ones common?
Devils Advocaat
So where would you like to run with it? :)
John Harshman
Devils Advocaat
My point, as in my opening post is straight forward, but I will expand
on it a little here for you.
How does the concept of creationism lend itself to explaining the
existence of the Plethodontidae, an entire family of salamander
species which are lungless and dependent entirely upon cutaneous
breathing?
Dan Listermann
"Devils Advocaat" <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0af49bd9-244c-4c2c...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
.
Devils Advocaat
> "Devils Advocaat" <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
Well creationism is supposed to be science.
So I would expect an explanation involving some science.
Or is that too much to ask for?
Ken
> On 8 Jan, 16:26, "Dan Listermann" <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
> > "Goddidit." � What were you expecting?
> Well creationism is supposed to be science.
LOL@ that!
> So I would expect an explanation involving some science.
>
> Or is that too much to ask for?
Way 2 much 2 axe 4!
Dan Listermann
.
Ken
> Ken wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 9:14 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
>
> > it, ASSman?
>
> He loves it, like the class clown in junior high who disrupts every lesson
> so he can have his attentiuon fix.
>
> David
Wanna bet he was also that screaming kid on the grocery store floor
that we all remember?
John Harshman
your point was straightforward or not. You aren't well equipped to read
your own post for clarity, since you already know what you were trying
to say.
I'm asking "Why plethodontids?" -- as opposed to any other group with
any other feature. Did you pick them at random, or is there something
special about them that makes them a particular challenge for
creationists? Could you equally well have asked creationists to explain
the presence of chromatophores in chameleons, or vessels in angiosperms?
Devils Advocaat
They are lungless and completely dependent on cutaneous breathing.
I would say that makes them special.
Ernest Major
<d59cea45-2eae-4afa...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >>>>>>>>> Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it explicit.
>> >>>>>>>> It's another piece of the nested hierarchy - an otherwise rare trait
>> >>>>>>>> being universal within a particular clade. The theory of evolution
>> >>>>>>>> explains this as a synapomorphy of the clade. Creationism
>> >>>>>>>>doesn't, as
>> >>>>>>>> far as I can tell, have an explanation for the distribution
or cottons?
--
alias Ernest Major
Devils Advocaat
You mean this one? Well he learnt all he knows from his mum :P
John Harshman
see that you are failing to explain your point?
Inez
> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > > On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
> > >> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the puzzle would be.
> > >> Can you explain?
>
> > > They are completely lacking lungs.
>
> > Go on. So?
>
> It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
>
> As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
> lungless.
>
> explanation of this lunglessness from their particular point of view.
>
> Which so far hasn't happened.
If God created each organism seperately it wouldn't be any problem for
some of them to have odd traits. In fact the more oddball the
creature the more it kinda looks like God was just poofing them
randomly into existence rather than that they were decending from each
other.
Inez
I having nothing against the good Mr. Advocaat and hate to pile on,
but I'm still stuck at the question of why specialness is a problem
for special creation.
It seems to me that this implied line of argument is backwards- with
creation you'd expect a bunch of unrelated creatures who might have
any sort of features. Evolution predicts that things show a degree of
sameness to each other.
Dan Listermann
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7081293f-be14-4433...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
.
Ernest Major
<2f0730ce-a3ca-4b74...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Inez
<savagem...@hotmail.com> writes
>On Jan 8, 10:56�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > On 8 Jan, 17:33, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>> On 8 Jan, 15:06, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>>>> On 7 Jan, 21:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 17:36, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> On 7 Jan, 07:53, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> In message <5L-dnWgpYZngi9jWRVn_...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
>> >>>>>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> writes
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan, 22:27, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>><mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a creationist, but I'm not getting what the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go on. So?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> �It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> �As I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>amphibian species are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> lungless.
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Again, so? If you have some kind of point, please make it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> explains this as a synapomorphy of the clade. Creationism
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>distribution of traits
>> >>>>>>>>>> among organisms.
>> >>>>>>>>>> (It took several posts before I could see what he was getting at.)
>> >>>>>>>>> For that I apologise, but to be honest I was probably in
>> >>>>>>>>>teacher mode,
>> >>>>>>>>> you know, comment on a topic and hope the class will pick it up and
>> >>>>>>>>> run with it.
>> >>>>>>>> Run where, exactly?
>> >>>>>>> :P
>> >>>>>> A competent teacher should be willing to answer questions from
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>> So where would you like to run with it? :)
>> >>>> I would like to run to wherever your point might be. Where is
you have misunderstood his argument. He's not talking about a bunch of
unrelated creatures with any sort of features, but about things
(plethodontids) that show a degree of sameness to each other.
Creationists don't have an explanation for the patterns of similarities
between organisms (correlated nested hierarchies). (Common design is not
an explanation - common design does not make any a priori predictions
about the patterns of similarities between organisms.) One little bit of
the patterns is that plethodontids all share the traits of lunglessness
with cutaneous breathing - a trait which is otherwise rare among
tetrapods. If that trait was scattered randomly among tetrapods that
would be consistent with your prediction from creation; but instead the
great majority of tetrapods displaying the trait belong to this single
group. This is readily explainable under the hypothesis of common
descent as a shared derived trait inherited from the common ancestor of
crown plethodontids.
The question is why he's asking creationists to explain this particular
bit of the pattern of relationships between organisms. (No creationist
seems to have stepped up to the challenge yet, but if they were to
partially concede common descent then they could explain the
observations by inferring that plethodontids all belong to a single
Biblical kind. While Young Earth Hyperevolutionism has all sorts of
problems with the evidence as a whole, it deals with this particular
challenge in isolation - and creationists don't commonly have a problem
with incompatible ad-hoc explanations.) If he had earlier conceded that
the universality of lunglessness among plethodontids and its rarity
among other tetrapods was an arbitrary piece of the nested hierarchy
that he happened to find to be striking, then we could understand his
position - I had thought that was what he was doing in his response to
my first post in this thread. But his subsequent claim that this
particular piece is special, and implicitly a particularly challenging
piece for creationists, suggests that he has some further argument that
he's failed to express successfully. What is different between
lunglessness in plethodontids and taillessness in hominoids - or for
another classic example, the distribution of the inability to synthesise
vitamin C among mammals.
--
alias Ernest Major
John Harshman
Desertphile
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
The occult explains everything.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 07:07:32 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
><mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
>The occult explains everything.
That has to be the only reason why Alabama beat both Florida and
Texas.
William Morse
Just asking as a friend ;-)
Stuart
Were they on the ARK?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Stuart
Stuart
> On Jan 6, 9:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
>
> How is that a puzzle?
>
WHat? You afraid there may be competition?
Don't, worry that isn't the case here.
Stuart
Stuart
They are special. But creationism doesn't even have an explanation
for the mundane.
Let alone something rare like cutaneceous breathing.
Stuart
richardal...@googlemail.com
That would mean the *he* has to know what he's talking about - which
seems very unlikely.
RF
Devils Advocaat
> <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> writes
I did point out the rarity of lunglessness in amphibians when
responding to one of the ASI's posts much earlier in the thread,
repeated here for your benefit.
"By the way of the 6,374 know species of frogs, toad, salamanders,
newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
6.03%.
One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
So being a lungless amphibian is not a common trait"
I also mentioned the same to you earlier as well:
"It isn't a common occurrence in amphibian species.
As I pointed out to the ASI only 6.03% of all amphibian species are
lungless"
Also I didn't raise the spectre of "specialness", you did, and if you
had looked at my previous comments about the rarity of lunglessness in
amphibians you wouldn't have needed to ask about what makes them
special.
So it seems to me, it isn't my failure in addressing the subject, but
possibly yours for missing those particular posts.
John Harshman
of your point. That suggests that you may be contributing to the problem
to some degree. Why not just make an explicit statement of what you're
trying to say here? Why did you choose the particular example of
plethodontids? Feel free to answer in more than one sentence. And take
it as given that we already know they don't have lungs and that they are
a fairly small group within amphibians.
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Why persist with this notion of specialness, which I never raised in
the first place?
The notion of specialness, was cast up by Mr Harshman.
Devils Advocaat
Lets see now.
Inez initially didn't get what the puzzle might be, but was satisfied
when I mentioned their lunglessness.
Inez later in the thread got stuck on the question of "specialness", a
point that you introduced into the thread which you later chose to
ignore when you said that I had claimed they were special.
Ernest Major admitted that it took several posts before he understood
what I was getting at.
Ernest later in the thread points out that while I may not have put my
point over very well, notes that you may have misunderstood my
argument.
Ernest also seems to have temporarily got stuck on your notion of what
makes them special, why that would be the case I have no idea, as it
is not an issue that I raised in the first place.
So at this point Inez and Ernest don't seem to have any problem with
my subject matter at this time, but both seem to be wondering about
the issue of what makes them special, a notion you threw into the pot
earlier on.
I don't recall seeing posts from anyone else who was having trouble
with my position on this topic, so your reference to "quite a few"
seems an exaggeration as you are the only one who seems to be still
not getting it.
And it seems to me you are shifting the goalposts.
Earlier you complained about my not presenting certain facts, when I
had already done so.
I pointed out those facts to you, and now you insist that I explain
why I chose the Plethodontidae (again) and insist it should taken as
given:
"that we already know they don't have lungs and that they are a fairly
small group within amphibians".
Finally, you want more of an explanation as to why I chose the
Plethodontidae for this thread's topic, which makes me ask why do you
insist that there be more to my explanation?
Isn't it enough that lunglessness coupled with a complete dependency
on cutaneous breathing, which is a rarity in all other amphibious
species (the only others being one frog and two caecilians), is
universal in this one family of salamanders?
Ernest Major
<e59a6ad4-d2fb-4974...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>So at this point Inez and Ernest don't seem to have any problem with my
>subject matter at this time, but both seem to be wondering about the
>issue of what makes them special, a notion you threw into the pot
>earlier on.
Your problem is that you bought in when you wrote "I would say that
makes them special." If you had decried the notion of specialness
instead we wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't think that you
were claiming that they were special until you wrote that.
--
alias Ernest Major
Desertphile
It also explains why Garth Brooks is heard on the radio.
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>
> >So at this point Inez and Ernest don't seem to have any problem with my
> >subject matter at this time, but both seem to be wondering about the
> >issue of what makes them special, a notion you threw into the pot
> >earlier on.
>
> Your problem is that you bought in when you wrote "I would say that
> makes them special." If you had decried the notion of specialness
> instead we wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't think that you
> were claiming that they were special until you wrote that.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Consider this definition of the word rarity from the online OED:
"the fact of occurring rarely or in few instances"
Do you all agree that their lunglessness is a rarity by this meaning
of the word?
Of course you do.
Now consider this definition of the word special from the same source:
"Marked off from others of the kind by some distinguishing qualities
or features"
Do you all agree that their lunglessness is special by this meaning of
the word?
After all a rarity can be special can it not?
John Harshman
I believe you misinterpret Inez and Ernest here.
> I don't recall seeing posts from anyone else who was having trouble
> with my position on this topic, so your reference to "quite a few"
> seems an exaggeration as you are the only one who seems to be still
> not getting it.
>
> And it seems to me you are shifting the goalposts.
>
> Earlier you complained about my not presenting certain facts, when I
> had already done so.
I don't recall such a complaint. You misunderstood the nature of my problem.
> I pointed out those facts to you, and now you insist that I explain
> why I chose the Plethodontidae (again) and insist it should taken as
> given:
>
> "that we already know they don't have lungs and that they are a fairly
> small group within amphibians".
>
> Finally, you want more of an explanation as to why I chose the
> Plethodontidae for this thread's topic, which makes me ask why do you
> insist that there be more to my explanation?
>
> Isn't it enough that lunglessness coupled with a complete dependency
> on cutaneous breathing, which is a rarity in all other amphibious
> species (the only others being one frog and two caecilians), is
> universal in this one family of salamanders?
>
No. Perhaps if you explained why you think this particular feature is
unusually difficult for creationists to explain, I will understand. Or
if you want to say that you just picked plethodontids at random, and
could have picked any feature of any group, I would understand that
too. Why don't you want to explain yourself?
Devils Advocaat
Perhaps you could elaborate on that comment a little?
>
> > I don't recall seeing posts from anyone else who was having trouble
> > with my position on this topic, so your reference to "quite a few"
> > seems an exaggeration as you are the only one who seems to be still
> > not getting it.
>
> > And it seems to me you are shifting the goalposts.
>
> > Earlier you complained about my not presenting certain facts, when I
> > had already done so.
>
> I don't recall such a complaint. You misunderstood the nature of my problem.
Your words were:
"If he had earlier conceded the universality of lunglessness among
plethodontids and its among other tetrapods was an arbitrary piece of
the nested that he happened to find to be striking"
Which as I have already pointed out, I had mentioned to you and the
ASI about this very fact, but you were clearly complaining in this
statement that I hadn't done so.
And isn't referring to something as "striking" very similar to calling
it "special"?
From the online OED:
Striking "That strikes the attention of an observer; producing a vivid
impression on the mind; telling, impressive, unusually remarkable"
Special "Marked off from others of the kind by some distinguishing
qualities or features"
I would say they are very similar indeed.
>
> > I pointed out those facts to you, and now you insist that I explain
> > why I chose the Plethodontidae (again) and insist it should taken as
> > given:
>
> > "that we already know they don't have lungs and that they are a fairly
> > small group within amphibians".
>
> > Finally, you want more of an explanation as to why I chose the
> > Plethodontidae for this thread's topic, which makes me ask why do you
> > insist that there be more to my explanation?
>
> > Isn't it enough that lunglessness coupled with a complete dependency
> > on cutaneous breathing, which is a rarity in all other amphibious
> > species (the only others being one frog and two caecilians), is
> > universal in this one family of salamanders?
>
> No. Perhaps if you explained why you think this particular feature is
> unusually difficult for creationists to explain, I will understand. Or
> if you want to say that you just picked plethodontids at random, and
> could have picked any feature of any group, I would �understand that
> too. Why don't you want to explain yourself?
I never suggested that it would be unusually difficult for them to
explain, I merely asked how they would explain it.
After all they consider their position to be one of science, so they
should be able to explain the lunglessness of the Plethodontidae from
a scientific position.
I have explained why I consider them a rarity and why I consider them
special after you asked for such explanations.
Why do you feel the need to demand more of an explanation?
Are you suggesting that I have some kind of hidden agenda?
John Harshman
I don't believe either one of them, in their most recent posts, has
claimed to understand what you were getting at. You still seem to be
arguing with Ernest about word defintions, which makes it seem that he
doesn't get your point. Though perhaps you're just being contrarian.
And Inez's last post seems to have been a question about what you meant.
>>> I don't recall seeing posts from anyone else who was having trouble
>>> with my position on this topic, so your reference to "quite a few"
>>> seems an exaggeration as you are the only one who seems to be still
>>> not getting it.
>>> And it seems to me you are shifting the goalposts.
>>> Earlier you complained about my not presenting certain facts, when I
>>> had already done so.
>> I don't recall such a complaint. You misunderstood the nature of my problem.
>
> Your words were:
>
> "If he had earlier conceded the universality of lunglessness among
> plethodontids and its among other tetrapods was an arbitrary piece of
> the nested that he happened to find to be striking"
>
> Which as I have already pointed out, I had mentioned to you and the
> ASI about this very fact, but you were clearly complaining in this
> statement that I hadn't done so.
I don't recall you ever saying such a thing. I must have missed it. Or
at least every clear statement was accompanied by apparently
contradictory ones, which made it hard to be sure what you meant.
> And isn't referring to something as "striking" very similar to calling
> it "special"?
No. And they key point here is "arbitrary". If you are saying that you
just happened to choose lunglessness, and could as well have chosen any
other feature of any other group, no problem. I just found it hard to
tell if that's indeed what you were saying.
> From the online OED:
>
> Striking "That strikes the attention of an observer; producing a vivid
> impression on the mind; telling, impressive, unusually remarkable"
>
> Special "Marked off from others of the kind by some distinguishing
> qualities or features"
>
> I would say they are very similar indeed.
Not in the present context.
"Hidden" is too strong. "Poorly expressed" might cover it, though you
also sometimes seem a bit coy, i.e. responding to direct questions with
vague hints or deflections. You seem not to have grasped what other
posters meant when they asked you if plethodontids were special, which
prolonged the misunderstanding. The questions was actually whether
plethodontids are "special" in some way that makes them unusually apt as
a challenge to creationists. You seem to have answered that with "no",
and that you just wanted to see how a creationist would explain any
characteristic. (Though in fact I'm still not 100% certain of this
interpretation.)
Devils Advocaat
Neither of them appears to have any problem with what I have said
about the Plethodontidae.
What they appear to have a problem with is whether their lunglessness
makes them special.
And you were the one that bought up the issue of what makes them
special.
> You still seem to be
> arguing with Ernest about word defintions, which makes it seem that he
> doesn't get your point.
I don't see how my clarifying the meanings of rarity and special can
be construed as "still arguing about word definitions".
Again his issue is with specialness, which you bought up in the first
place, not I.
> Though perhaps you're just being contrarian.
> And Inez's last post seems to have been a question about what you meant.
Inez's last posting, about two days back, was in response to a posting
of yours, in which he was puzzling over the issue of specialness,
which if I may say so again, you raised in the first place.
>
> >>> I don't recall seeing posts from anyone else who was having trouble
> >>> with my position on this topic, so your reference to "quite a few"
> >>> seems an exaggeration as you are the only one who seems to be still
> >>> not getting it.
> >>> And it seems to me you are shifting the goalposts.
> >>> Earlier you complained about my not presenting certain facts, when I
> >>> had already done so.
> >> I don't recall such a complaint. You misunderstood the nature of my problem.
>
> > Your words were:
>
> > "If he had earlier conceded the universality of lunglessness among
> > plethodontids and its among other tetrapods was an arbitrary piece of
> > the nested that he happened to find to be striking"
>
> > Which as I have already pointed out, I had mentioned to you and the
> > ASI about this very fact, but you were clearly complaining in this
> > statement that I hadn't done so.
>
> I don't recall you ever saying such a thing. I must have missed it. Or
> at least every clear statement was accompanied by apparently
> contradictory ones, which made it hard to be sure what you meant.
Perhaps you can point out the contradictory statements which you claim
made you miss those of clarity which I posted?
>
> > And isn't referring to something as "striking" very similar to calling
> > it "special"?
>
> No. And they key point here is "arbitrary". If you are saying that you
> just happened to choose lunglessness, and could as well have chosen any
> other feature of any other group, no problem. I just found it hard to
> tell if that's indeed what you were saying.
Perhaps you should read the rest of my previous post to you for my
answer on this issue.
>
> > From the online OED:
>
> > Striking "That strikes the attention of an observer; producing a vivid
> > impression on the mind; telling, impressive, unusually remarkable"
>
> > Special "Marked off from others of the kind by some distinguishing
> > qualities or features"
>
> > I would say they are very similar indeed.
>
> Not in the present context.
They are lungless, which is a distinguishing feature is it not?
And that very feature produced a vivid impression on my mind.
That is why I picked them for the creationists to explain.
As far as I can recall you were the one that raised the issue of what
makes them special.
And I have explained several times now what, in my opinion makes them
special.
Ernest and Inez, were not asking about why I thought they were
special.
They were asking why specialness was an issue.
I never raised the issue of this being impossible, or even difficult
for creationists to answer.
Again that is an issue you raised.
I was hoping that a creationist would try and explain the lunglessness
in the context of creationism.
And as I have pointed out before they consider their view to be a
scientific one.
And I was hoping they would offer a scientific explanation within the
context of their worldview.
But I would like you now to explain yourself to me.
Why when I explain my position are you never satisfied?
Why do you keep shifting the goalposts with every demand for an
explanation?
Why do you keep on belaboring points that you raised as if I had
raised them?
John Harshman
> But I would like you now to explain yourself to me.
>
> Why when I explain my position are you never satisfied?
I'm satisfied now, so your question rests on a false premise. I hadn't
been satisfied in the past because you had not clearly explained your
position.
> Why do you keep shifting the goalposts with every demand for an
> explanation?
Don't.
> Why do you keep on belaboring points that you raised as if I had
> raised them?
Don't. I raised the points as a possible guess at your explanation, when
it wasn't forthcoming.
But now that it's clear, let's consider your original challenge. No
creationist has made any real attempt (Madman's was lame even for a
creationist) at answering it.
My creationist explanation would be that plethodontids are lungless
because they don't need lungs, skin absorption being perfectly adequate
for them. Because they didn't need lungs, god didn't give them any. Or,
to put it another way, they are designed to function without lungs.
What do you think of that explanation?
And what is your explanation for plethodontids?
Devils Advocaat
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> > But I would like you now to explain yourself to me.
>
> > Why when I explain my position are you never satisfied?
>
> I'm satisfied now, so your question rests on a false premise. I hadn't
> been satisfied in the past because you had not clearly explained your
> position.
What false premise would that be, that creationism is scientific?
Note, I didn't say it was, I said that creationists say that this
position of theirs is scientific.
>
> > Why do you keep shifting the goalposts with every demand for an
> > explanation?
>
> Don't.
I wont accept your "don't" when you know very well that you did.
One example being the issue of the rarity of lunglessness that you
claimed I hadn't mentioned.
When I pointed out that I had done, your next demand for an
explanation included a comment in which you said something along the
lines of "take it as given that we already know they don't have lungs
and that they are a fairly small group within amphibians"
Which is a clear shifting of the goalposts in your demands.
>
> > Why do you keep on belaboring points that you raised as if I had
> > raised them?
>
> Don't. I raised the points as a possible guess at your explanation, when
> it wasn't forthcoming.
I have no objection to a point being raised, but when you keep
returning to it, even when I have explained my position, that is
belaboring the point.
>
> But now that it's clear, let's consider your original challenge. No
> creationist has made any real attempt (Madman's was lame even for a
> creationist) at answering it.
I know that already, and it wasn't necessary for you to bring this
point up.
>
> My creationist explanation would be that plethodontids are lungless
> because they don't need lungs, skin absorption being perfectly adequate
> for them. Because they didn't need lungs, god didn't give them any. Or,
> to put it another way, they are designed to function without lungs.
>
> What do you think of that explanation?
That would be the typical evasiveness that many have come to expect
from creationists.
However, as I said before they claim their point of view is a
scientific one, and I was hoping that one of them would offer and
explanation of the lunglessness of the Plethodontidae that would be a
scientific one.
>
> And what is your explanation for plethodontids?
I personally don't have an explanation, not being in a position to
study these particular salamanders first hand.
However the most common hypothesis is that their lunglessness is an
buoyancy reduction adaptation to the fast flowing streams they
originally inhabited.
Although there has been a challenge to this hypothesis, I have not
been able to track down the relevant papers.
Ernest Major
<3138b1cb-a71f-4b45...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On 10 Jan, 20:41, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> > But I would like you now to explain yourself to me.
>>
>> > Why when I explain my position are you never satisfied?
>>
>> I'm satisfied now, so your question rests on a false premise. I hadn't
>> been satisfied in the past because you had not clearly explained your
>> position.
>
>What false premise would that be, that creationism is scientific?
The false premise is that he is "never satisfied".
--
alias Ernest Major
Masked Avenger
>
> No. And they key point here is "arbitrary". If you are saying that you
> just happened to choose lunglessness, and could as well have chosen any
> other feature of any other group, no problem. I just found it hard to
> tell if that's indeed what you were saying.
>
That's exactly what I understood DA's questioning to mean from the very
start ....... he could have chosen lots of other features of lots of
other species but chose to start with this one ........ I have no
problem with this ...... I don't see why you are making such a big deal
out of it .......
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
Nick Keighley
> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 6, 7:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
> > Can you explain?
>
> They are completely lacking lungs.
and why is this a problem? Reading wikipedia they appear to breath
through the skin and mouth. Yeah strange but why are they any more
strange than quite a few other things?
Devils Advocaat
wrote:
Where did I say it was a problem?
LT
> On Jan 6, 4:14 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jan, 17:14, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:07 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
>
>
> > > How is that a puzzle?
>
> > > Do you LIKE looking like an idiot?
>
>
> > These particular salamanders are completely lungless.
>
> > Do you see the puzzle now?
>
> There was no evasion Evo-Freak. Yopu said: You just said
> "Plethodontidae". Of which there are hundrerds that are "lungless".
>
> NOW, you dishonestly move the goal posts
>
>
>
> > By the way of the 6,374 know species of frogs, toad, salamanders,
> > newts and caecilians, only 383 are completely lungless, that is a mere
> > 6.03%.
>
> > One being a frog, two being caecilians, and the other 380 all being
> > salamanders of the family Plethodontidae.
>
> > evolutionary explanation for this.
>
> > But you haven't even tried to offer an explanation from the
> > creationist point of view.
>
> I would NOT call 384 "lungless" creatures anything other then
> "common". One or two of them and you would have a point.
>
> Just more lying from the evolutionists.
You know, if you had just said "I don't know what the explanation for
this is from a Creationist point of view," you would get a great deal
more kudos for admitting it than just evading and name-calling.
And by the way, 384 species out of 6,374 species is in no uncertain
terms a small minority, a rarity. Not common, not "a lot", but
uncommon. Rare.
LT
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>
>> No. And they key point here is "arbitrary". If you are saying that you
>> just happened to choose lunglessness, and could as well have chosen
>> any other feature of any other group, no problem. I just found it hard
>> to tell if that's indeed what you were saying.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I understood DA's questioning to mean from the very
> start ....... he could have chosen lots of other features of lots of
> other species but chose to start with this one ........ I have no
> problem with this ...... I don't see why you are making such a big deal
> out of it .......
>
the point. His latest post suggests for the first time that there is a
special reason for bringing up plethodontids in particular. Go figure.
John Harshman
> On 10 Jan, 20:41, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>>> But I would like you now to explain yourself to me.
>>> Why when I explain my position are you never satisfied?
>> I'm satisfied now, so your question rests on a false premise. I hadn't
>> been satisfied in the past because you had not clearly explained your
>> position.
>
> What false premise would that be, that creationism is scientific?
I thought it would have been obvious: the false premise is that I am
never satisfied.
> Note, I didn't say it was, I said that creationists say that this
> position of theirs is scientific.
Sometimes they do. Other times they say that it's religious, and so is
evolution.
>>> Why do you keep shifting the goalposts with every demand for an
>>> explanation?
>> Don't.
>
> I wont accept your "don't" when you know very well that you did.
How do you know what I know? It's at least polite to accept that other
people aren't lying absent strong evidence otherwise.
> One example being the issue of the rarity of lunglessness that you
> claimed I hadn't mentioned.
I never claimed that, as far as I can remember. Do you have me confused
with someone else?
> When I pointed out that I had done, your next demand for an
> explanation included a comment in which you said something along the
> lines of "take it as given that we already know they don't have lungs
> and that they are a fairly small group within amphibians"
> Which is a clear shifting of the goalposts in your demands.
No, it's a clarification. The first time I asked what the point was, you
told me plethodontids were lungless, which didn't enlighten me, so I
tried to forestall that response.
>>> Why do you keep on belaboring points that you raised as if I had
>>> raised them?
>> Don't. I raised the points as a possible guess at your explanation, when
>> it wasn't forthcoming.
>
> I have no objection to a point being raised, but when you keep
> returning to it, even when I have explained my position, that is
> belaboring the point.
I didn't find your previous explanations clear.
>> But now that it's clear, let's consider your original challenge. No
>> creationist has made any real attempt (Madman's was lame even for a
>> creationist) at answering it.
>
> I know that already, and it wasn't necessary for you to bring this
> point up.
Sometimes I do things that aren't necessary.
>> My creationist explanation would be that plethodontids are lungless
>> because they don't need lungs, skin absorption being perfectly adequate
>> for them. Because they didn't need lungs, god didn't give them any. Or,
>> to put it another way, they are designed to function without lungs.
>>
>> What do you think of that explanation?
>
> That would be the typical evasiveness that many have come to expect
> from creationists.
>
> However, as I said before they claim their point of view is a
> scientific one, and I was hoping that one of them would offer and
> explanation of the lunglessness of the Plethodontidae that would be a
> scientific one.
I'm not sure what you would count as scientific. A creationist, of
necessity, assumes creation. Most of them assume direct, fiat creation,
as in "let there be plethodontids", and there were plethodontids.
Poofing isn't amenable to further explanation; it's just poofing, and we
can't parse it further. We can produce evidence that poofing happened,
and we can explain the motivations behind that particular bit of poofing
rather than some different bit. But I don't see any possibility for
further examination. Do you? Was your point in fact that a scientific
explanation of anything that involves poofing is impossible?
>> And what is your explanation for plethodontids?
>
> I personally don't have an explanation, not being in a position to
> study these particular salamanders first hand.
>
> However the most common hypothesis is that their lunglessness is an
> buoyancy reduction adaptation to the fast flowing streams they
> originally inhabited.
>
> Although there has been a challenge to this hypothesis, I have not
> been able to track down the relevant papers.
See now, this, had you explained it before, would indeed have made
plethodontids special *in a relevant way*. It interprets lunglessness as
a vestigial feature -- one that was adaptive once, for reasons no longer
relevant to the extant species. Creationists have problems with
explaining vestigial features that they don't have explaining adaptive
features. So did you in fact choose plethodontids randomly, as you have
said, and just lucked into this as a special problem for creationists.
Or did you pick them for just that reason, and are only now getting
around to saying so?
LT
> Eric Root wrote:> >>> On 6 Jan, 22:40, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 6, 4:16 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6 Jan, 17:41, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> How would the concept of creationism explain Plethodontidae?
> >>>>>> Can you explain?
> >>>>> They are completely lacking lungs.
> >>> Not at all.
> >>>> They still breath air through their skin IIRC.
> >>>> What was your point
> >>>> Is that suppose to be evidence of speciation? evolution? a different
> >>>> design from the others? Or were you saying your Aunt Myrtle is a lung-
> >>>> less fish?
> >>> Did I say anything about speciation, evolution or design? No.
> >>> I asked for an explanation from the creationist position, and I have
> >>> yet to see one offered.
> >> What would such an explanation look like? Nobody, including creationists
> >> and evolutionists, seems to know what you're getting at here.
>
> > Maybe he just wants to see if a creationist can form a scientific
> > argument? �I, for one, would never accept creastionism until they
> > could make well-formed scientific arguments, complete with proposed
> > mechanisms that meshed with what we know of reality from other areas
> > of science. �Scientists of all stripes would have to recognize it as
> > science, not religion.
>
> Maybe. But I bet he brought up plethodontids in particular because he
> thinks they're especially difficult for creationists to explain.
>
> Ignoring that question, what would be the nature of a creationist
> explanation for any adaptive feature? How would it differ from an
> evolutionary explanation? God made plethodontids without lungs because
> that suited them for their environments. Or plethodontids lost lungs
> because they were unnecessary. (There may be a fancier explanation that
> I don't know about, which would be fun.) But Gould always said that
> creation was as good an explanation for adaptation as selection was.
> It's the panda's thumb we need evolution for.
I think it's more likely he brought up plethodontids as an abritrary
example of the endless list of things observed in nature with no
Creationist "scientific" explanation, other than Goddidit. His posts
in this thread would seem to support this. I don't know what all the
confusion is about.
LT
Nick Keighley
> On 11 Jan, 15:33, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
why does it require an explanation if it's not a problem?
lottery nan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> �ｿｽAs I pointed out the the ASI only 6.03% of all
>
> read more �ｿｽ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
becausee we are made by God,so we are part of Him...science reaserch
limit would prove that fractal theory works,then we see God.
samelike fractals beings,us,bondaged by sin and see the
illusion....and God feel sorry for us so he came to us and wake up us.
The human beings are made by a certainity from god,from his random
program..The DNA struture failed,so we came as men and
women,sinners,bondaged by marriage,and have sinful babes.
knwoing God is right here,u will wake up.
Nan
Free Lunch
<lotteryp...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
We cannot start with that assumption since there is no evidence that God
exists.
>so we are part of Him...science reaserch
>limit would prove that fractal theory works,then we see God.
>samelike fractals beings,us,bondaged by sin and see the
>illusion....and God feel sorry for us so he came to us and wake up us.
>The human beings are made by a certainity from god,from his random
>program..The DNA struture failed,so we came as men and
>women,sinners,bondaged by marriage,and have sinful babes.
>knwoing God is right here,u will wake up.
>Nan
That makes no sense at all.
magicus
<lotteryp...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> becausee we are made by God,so we are part of Him...science reaserch
> limit would prove that fractal theory works,then we see God. samelike
> fractals beings,us,bondaged by sin and see the illusion....and God feel
> sorry for us so he came to us and wake up us. The human beings are made
> by a certainity from god,from his random program..The DNA struture
> failed,so we came as men and women,sinners,bondaged by marriage,and have
> sinful babes. knwoing God is right here,u will wake up. Nan
I just got through reading yr various posts in alt.atheism. They made
about
as much sense there as this one. i.e. none, just sayin'...
I think I have another candidate for the bozo bin here.
ciao,
f
--
aa #2301
“Using words to describe magic is like using a screwdriver to cut roast
beef.”
-- Tom Robbins