Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Jack Dominey
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>wrote:
>
<snip>
>: And we have repeated verifications of evolution doing exactly what we
>: claim it does.
>
> Not the fish to man version of evolution they believe in.
>If you have an observation and/or test/verification of that
>version of evolution please feel free to present it. You'd be the
>first.
Actually I'd be the several dozenth in this thread alone. You're just
dismissing each one, usually with no reason.
Your problem - and this is certainly your problem and not your
interlocutors' - is that you refuse to consider or discuss evidence in
any way. You have a few catchphrases of which you are inordinately
fond and you repeat them ad nauseum.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, you are clearly demanding that we show
you an X turning into a Y, where X and Y are a young child's category
of creature. So the fact that humans have taken an original canine
stock and bred both Pomeranians and Irish Wolfhounds is dismissed
because you get to chirp "doggie!" at each one.
Let me make one last request before I stop responding to you
altogether.
Please be more honest. Don't ask for "an observation and/or
test/verification", because that's not what you mean. What you mean
is, as nearly as I can tell, "show me an everyday category of creature
transforming into a different category, without reference to the
fossil record". People will answer you much the same way as we
already have, but at least you will be actually asking for what you
want.
<snip>
--
Usenet: http://xkcd.com/386/
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
Gabriel
wrote:
: In <n78be45gq4gv9qqc3...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: >On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
: >wrote:
: >
: <snip>
:
: >: And we have repeated verifications of evolution doing exactly what we
: >: claim it does.
: >
: > Not the fish to man version of evolution they believe in.
: >If you have an observation and/or test/verification of that
: >version of evolution please feel free to present it. You'd be the
: >first.
:
: Actually I'd be the several dozenth in this thread alone. You're just
: dismissing each one, usually with no reason.
No, it's dismissed because it's constantly things like
populations of mosquitoes producing, over generations, more
mosquitoes. Then they end with the dishonest statement that this
is an observation. It's an example of an animal adapting, not
anywhere near an example of the fish to man version of evolution
they believe in, which is a point you are determined to ignore.
:
: Your problem - and this is certainly your problem and not your
: interlocutors' - is that you refuse to consider or discuss evidence in
: any way. You have a few catchphrases of which you are inordinately
: fond and you repeat them ad nauseum.
:
: As I've pointed out elsewhere, you are clearly demanding that we show
: you an X turning into a Y, where X and Y are a young child's category
: of creature.
Since you believe the claim that populations of fish,
over generations, produced human beings, that's exactly the sort
of observation and/or test/verification they need to show it's
even scientific.
: So the fact that humans have taken an original canine
: stock and bred both Pomeranians and Irish Wolfhounds is dismissed
: because you get to chirp "doggie!" at each one.
Exactly. We already know dogs produce dogs and that dogs,
like all animals adapt. You believe dogs came from fish. Show
such an observation that backs up this science-fiction claim, and
you'd be in business. The thing is, no one can.
And science repeatedly shows observations and/or
tests/verifications that dogs only *ever* produce dogs. Science
itself disproves the fish to man version of evolution.
:
: Let me make one last request before I stop responding to you
: altogether.
:
: Please be more honest.
Claiming fish can learn to breathe air instead of water,
learn to walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
English, learn to design and program computers, is being honest?
You have an odd definition of being honest.
: Don't ask for "an observation and/or
: test/verification", because that's not what you mean. What you mean
: is, as nearly as I can tell, "show me an everyday category of creature
: transforming into a different category, without reference to the
: fossil record". People will answer you much the same way as we
: already have, but at least you will be actually asking for what you
: want.
How about not saying you're offering "observations" of
the fish to man version of evolution when you never do, and only
instead show cases of what we've been aware of for centuries:
that animals adapt?
:
: <snip>
Devils Advocaat
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:49:27 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>
> wrote:
>
> : In <n78be45gq4gv9qqc399h4h558gb9t0q...@4ax.com>, Gabriel: <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : >On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, Jack Dominey <l...@my.sig>
You raised this in another thread and I asked you to show this as
being presented in any biology textbook that deals with the subject of
evolution.
And guess what?
You didn't bother to address it truthfully then, and I doubt that you
ever will, even in this thread.
Which makes you ... guess what?
I will wait for you to admit what that makes you.
Jack Dominey
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:49:27 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>wrote:
>
>: In <n78be45gq4gv9qqc3...@4ax.com>, Gabriel
>: <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: >On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:47:18 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig>
>: >wrote:
<snip>
>: Your problem - and this is certainly your problem and not your
>: interlocutors' - is that you refuse to consider or discuss evidence in
>: any way. You have a few catchphrases of which you are inordinately
>: fond and you repeat them ad nauseum.
>:
>: As I've pointed out elsewhere, you are clearly demanding that we show
>: you an X turning into a Y, where X and Y are a young child's category
>: of creature.
>
> Since you believe the claim that populations of fish,
>over generations, produced human beings, that's exactly the sort
>of observation and/or test/verification they need to show it's
>even scientific.
No. You have a little grade-school cartoon demand - which, by the
way, thanks for admitting - but this has nothing to do with science.
You won't discuss evidence and are immune to reason, so every attempt
to engage sends you back to the same phrases.
<snip>
>: Please be more honest.
>
> Claiming fish can learn to breathe air instead of water,
>learn to walk upright on two legs, learn to read and write
>English, learn to design and program computers, is being honest?
>You have an odd definition of being honest.
It certainly seems to be different from the one you subscribe to.
>: Don't ask for "an observation and/or
>: test/verification", because that's not what you mean. What you mean
>: is, as nearly as I can tell, "show me an everyday category of creature
>: transforming into a different category, without reference to the
>: fossil record". People will answer you much the same way as we
>: already have, but at least you will be actually asking for what you
>: want.
>
> How about not saying you're offering "observations" of
>the fish to man version of evolution when you never do, and only
>instead show cases of what we've been aware of for centuries:
>that animals adapt?
What, like saying that "observations" of universal gravitation only
instead show cases of what we've been aware of for centuries: that
things fall?
If you don't think humans have figured out anything in the last
several centuries, I don't see how that's any problem of mine.