Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[Baggins]

They have concluded that the whale descended from this creature just because of a few similarities. That fits correlation and causation.

No it doesn't. They have concluded that whales have evolved from land animals due to a chain of fossil evidence and morphological similarities. That has got absolutely nothing to to do with statistical similarities.

Things like this weary me immensely, people just don't even try to understand

 

[notto]

Worse than that. You not in a position to teach it.

What would you like to know? Would you like to understand why your description of giraffe evolution is a strawman and why it demonstrates ignorance of the theory of evolution?

Would you like to discuss the actual theory of evolution and not your made up characterization of it? Would you like to discuss any of the many independent lines of evidence used to support the theory of evolution?

What would you like to know?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They have concluded that the whale descended from this creature just because of a few similarities. That fits correlation and causation.

As I said elsewhere, the correlation is used as evidence because a causal relationship has been demonstrated: the Indohyus evolved into the Cetaceans. From an evolutionary point of view, the evidence for this is compelling indeed:

"The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans."

EDIT: Also, as thaumaturgy points out in succeding post, you are conflating statistical correlation with morphological correlation. The "correlation does not imply causation" is a statistical rule, and only works in such scenarios.

 

[thaumaturgy]

They have concluded that the whale descended from this creature just because of a few similarities. That fits correlation and causation.

I think you might be using the colloquial form of "correlation", not the statistical form.

Colloquially what we see are similarities between these forms which indicates commonalities.

This isn't the same as a statistical correlation.

What paleontologists are doing in cases like this is a form of "pattern matching", looking for connections.

This is where it pays to have an appreciation for the intense amount of detail involved in knowing a field. I am still a newbie to statistical analyses, but I use it pretty much every day. It is a very intense field that you can't just jump into without being fully aware that you will make mistakes early and often.

This is why creationists need to get a broader view of all of these fields before they try to make "incisive" commentary. Many of you seem to think that if you know a couple of terms or a couple of "aphorisms" you can make big indictments of how scientists do their job.

But I can tell you from personal experience that you will fall on your face more than you will stand to decimate the science.

The thing you learn after about 3 months as a scientist is: You will have to work really hard before you are going to make a valid input to the field. Some of us realize that we may never know enough to make a modest wave in science, let alone totally re-work all of known science.

Creationists on this forum seem to think that if they learn one or two words or phrases they are going to make a big tsunami in the field.

Statistically, probabilistically, you will not.

 

[Inan3]

I think you might be using the colloquial form of "correlation", not the statistical form.

Colloquially what we see are similarities between these forms which indicates commonalities.

This isn't the same as a statistical correlation.

What paleontologists are doing in cases like this is a form of "pattern matching", looking for connections.

This is where it pays to have an appreciation for the intense amount of detail involved in knowing a field. I am still a newbie to statistical analyses, but I use it pretty much every day. It is a very intense field that you can't just jump into without being fully aware that you will make mistakes early and often.

This is why creationists need to get a broader view of all of these fields before they try to make "incisive" commentary. Many of you seem to think that if you know a couple of terms or a couple of "aphorisms" you can make big indictments of how scientists do their job.

But I can tell you from personal experience that you will fall on your face more than you will stand to decimate the science.

The thing you learn after about 3 months as a scientist is: You will have to work really hard before you are going to make a valid input to the field. Some of us realize that we may never know enough to make a modest wave in science, let alone totally re-work all of known science.

Creationists on this forum seem to think that if they learn one or two words or phrases they are going to make a big tsunami in the field.

Statistically, probabilistically, you will not.

Thank you TMT, long time no hear. How are you? How was/is your book? I hope you had a happy holiday and of course, will have a Happy New Year!

I think this is good advice. Just one small disagreement. Perhaps, it might be a little off the mark suggesting that creationists on the forum think that if they learn one or two words or phrases they are going to make a big tsunami in the field. I can only speak for myself but I never expect to make a big tsunami. I only expect to be able to state my point of view and in turn hear that of others. So are you suggesting that until people have the educational knowledge that you have that they should not post on this forum?

 

[Inan3]

Actually, you said:



(emphasis mine)

I guess it was a typo, but you were actually correct with that statement. Which is why the longer-necked creatures would have an advantage.



Am I, really?

Yes, it was a typo. Good catch, though.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thank you TMT, long time no hear. How are you? How was/is your book?

It was very good. I followed it up with Radium Girls, a book about the radium dial painters in the early 20th century and how it related to industrial hygiene movements and the interplay with women's movements around the time.

I think this is good advice. Just one small disagreement. Perhaps, it might be a little off the mark suggesting that creationists on the forum think that if they learn one or two words or phrases they are going to make a big tsunami in the field.

I'd say overturning a couple centuries of solid steady scientific work by countless individuals would be tsunami-like.

I only expect to be able to state my point of view and in turn hear that of others.

But don't be surprised when someone points out, quite brusquely, errors. While your "correlation" discussion wasn't an "error", many times creationists post errors and scientists are often hard-nosed on things like this.

The constant posts from YEC's about the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a good example. It is posted with poor understanding and when the scientists repeatedly correct the poster, it finally gets frustrating enough to bring out the big guns.

So are you suggesting that until people have the educational knowledge that you have that they should not post on this forum?

Not at all. What I fail to understand is how creationists can repeatedly come to the table, ignorance proudly on display, be corrected over and over and over again, and fail to ever take any new information away from the discussion.

But more importantly, something we all learn in science is that you will make mistakes and not every time will you land on soft-fluffy pillows.

Everyone of us who've gone on for advanced degrees have stood in front of senior faculty and put our foots firmly in our mouths and many many times we've had the faculty laugh at us, or literally rip us a new one.

As I've said before, it's a fire you have to be forged in. You may have put yourself through other, equally difficult situations, but when it comes to science many creationists don't understand that for us, we have been forged in this particular fire. We've made the same rookie mistakes you all are actively making.

And sadly we are probably treating you as we were treated, but it bears fruit if you bother to learn from the experience.

Unfortunately in a debate forum creationists can run away to their secret hiding places to lick their wounds instead of staying with the fire.

My wife's advisor in grad school was a prime-grade A jerk. He was a monster to her and all his grad students. I took a few of his classes and he was a jerk in the classes.

The thing was, he was brilliant. He was one of the smartest scientists I've met. In his classes if you didn't know your stuff when you went into class you rued that day. You were eviscerated and made fun of. The thing you learned was not to run away, but to come to class the next day prepared for the fight.

I learned more in some of his classes than I had in many many other classes.

I don't like the guy but I respect the guy. I realized then that I have to have the discipline imposed on me.

Expect when arguing science that a scientist is going to push back and push back hard.

Maybe not all of them, but you will get more than fluffy bunnies thrown at you in a science debate.

 

[Losangeleschristian]

What would you like to know? Would you like to understand why your description of giraffe evolution is a strawman and why it demonstrates ignorance of the theory of evolution?

Would you like to discuss the actual theory of evolution and not your made up characterization of it? Would you like to discuss any of the many independent lines of evidence used to support the theory of evolution?

What would you like to know?

You saing i have misunderstanding because you got no evidence to show for the giraffe. There is nothing else close to a girraffe. So how it come about by evolution??

Todays giraffe have to have what you call predecessors that you can see like old car models up the present.

evolution of man the same way. Quack scientists say man came about from some crude version all hunched over. Look like an aboriginy. I see it straightening up over time.

Where is the original giraffe and missing giraffs? We talking about hundreds of thousands of years that giraffe trying to get to leaves on a tree. You don't know because you got no evidence for it so what you going to do now?

 

[Losangeleschristian]

many thousands of years of selection to favor long necks. The necks could have started off short like other animals but if selection through the environmental pressure selects longer necked creatures, successive generations will have longer necks.



this is easily explained with genetic drift and natural selection. read about them. you don't honestly think that all species are alive to today do you? fossilization is incredibly rare. you don't expect every single generation of living creatures to be preserved do you?

So now it is your turn to offer how god did it. What methods or mechanics? what evidence is their at all that god did it?

Im not satisfied with your answer so its still your turn. You said the words "could have". That throw me off right there. If survival means reaching for them leaves you got to see the change over time like with the neck getting longer and longer. Your answer just a bluff like that dark matter. havent found that either-just want people to take your word for it and want us to stop asking questions.


They got fossils of dinosaurs dont they? They got a lot too so why they never find older giraffes with short necks?

 

[necroforest]

Im not satisfied with your answer so its still your turn. You said the words "could have". That throw me off right there. If survival means reaching for them leaves you got to see the change over time like with the neck getting longer and longer. Your answer just a bluff like that dark matter. havent found that either-just want people to take your word for it and want us to stop asking questions.


They got fossils of dinosaurs dont they? They got a lot too so why they never find older giraffes with short necks?

Could you do us a favor and sign up for a writing class at a community college? Your posts make my head hurt.

Here's your giraffe fossils:

1. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

 

[EnemyPartyII]

You saing i have misunderstanding because you got no evidence to show for the giraffe. There is nothing else close to a girraffe. So how it come about by evolution??

Todays giraffe have to have what you call predecessors that you can see like old car models up the present.

evolution of man the same way. Quack scientists say man came about from some crude version all hunched over. Look like an aboriginy. I see it straightening up over time.

Where is the original giraffe and missing giraffs? We talking about hundreds of thousands of years that giraffe trying to get to leaves on a tree. You don't know because you got no evidence for it so what you going to do now?

Would you like a list of predecessor organisms to the modern giraffe?

Do you understand that giraffes TRYING to reach high leaves has nothing to do with evolution? Occasionally a mutation with a longer neck is born, and it survives better than its contemporaries, giving it an increased chance to reproduce.

There is no trying or desire in evolution, that isn't how it works.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Could you do us a favor and sign up for a writing class at a community college? Your posts make my head hurt.

Here's your giraffe fossils:

1. Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

necroforrest beat me to it, but there you go. Whole list of precursor fossils.

Am I overly cynical for anticipating a forthcoming goalpost shift by LAC?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You saing i have misunderstanding because you got no evidence to show for the giraffe. There is nothing else close to a girraffe. So how it come about by evolution??

Simple. See also:
Stevens, J. (1993). Familiar Strangers. International Wildlife, 23, 6-10.

It'll be at your local library.

Todays giraffe have to have what you call predecessors that you can see like old car models up the present.

Correct.

evolution of man the same way. Quack scientists say man came about from some crude version all hunched over.

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Look like an aboriginy.

That is not only false, it is obscenely racist. Justify this claim, or I will report you.

Where is the original giraffe and missing giraffs?

Dead. What do you expect? They lived millions of years ago.

We talking about hundreds of thousands of years that giraffe trying to get to leaves on a tree. You don't know because you got no evidence for it so what you going to do now?

Well, since you continue to ignore the evidence presented to you, I guess the only thing we can do is just present the evidence again.

Im not satisfied with your answer so its still your turn. You said the words "could have". That throw me off right there.

Why? We are proposing an explanation, not proven fact. It could have evolved in that way, or it could have evolved in some other way. We propose the former because the evidence and the logic soundly point to it. That's what science is all about: explaining why the facts are as they are.

If survival means reaching for them leaves you got to see the change over time like with the neck getting longer and longer.

Correct.

Your answer just a bluff like that dark matter. havent found that either-just want people to take your word for it and want us to stop asking questions.

We are all for people asking questions. It just annoys us when the questioner ignores the answer.

They got fossils of dinosaurs dont they? They got a lot too so why they never find older giraffes with short necks?

The dinosaurs were a massive group of organisms, numbering into their millions, even billions, at any one time. Giraffes, in case you hadn't noticed, are but a single species.
The odds of fossilisation is about the same, but that there were so many more dinosaurs is the reason why we have so many more fossils.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ah bugger... I called it wrong... not a goal post shift even, just a pure and simple thread abandonment. Oh well, either or.

 

[Losangeleschristian]

necroforrest beat me to it, but there you go. Whole list of precursor fossils.

Am I overly cynical for anticipating a forthcoming goalpost shift by LAC?

No. Like yourself I let someone who know more about it answer for me.

You just go to http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/giraffe.htm

for my answer

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No. Like yourself I let someone who know more about it answer for me.

You just go to http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/giraffe.htm

for my answer

1. Has anyone found fossils of short-necked giraffe herds that prove an earlier stage of evolution?
Answer: No.

Lie. You have been provided with links that demonstrate otherwise.

2. Did short-necked giraffes die because they couldn't reach food?
Answer: No. Like all the other animals, they could bend down and eat the food closer to the ground. The belief that giraffes always seek the high branches is not true:

"According to the competition hypothesis, giraffes use their long necks to advantage during dry seasons, when food is scarce; but, in fact, the opposite is observed in the field. ...
"...'females spend over 50% of their time feeding with their necks horizontal [a behavior so common it is used to determine the sex of animals at a distance]' and 'both sexes feed faster and most often with their necks bent.' These observations, they conclude, suggest 'that long necks did not evolve specifically for feeding at higher levels.'"[3]​

Who claims short necked creatures died out? The theory says only that long necks confered an advantage, that led to the occupation of a certain ecological niche. Evolution doesn't always mean extinction for all but one successor species... indeed, this is rare. Different advantages result in branching families, which is why we see so many related, yet different forms

4. What happens to a giraffe's head when it bends down to drink? Since his head is below his body, does it fill up

with blood and start throbbing? Does it feel strange -- as your head would if you were upside-down for a while?
Answer: The blood vessels in a giraffe's neck have special valves that control the flow of blood. From the beginning, the giraffe was created with all the body parts it needed to survive. If it only had a long neck without the special valves or its very large heart, it would have died:

PRATT as neck mutations accumulate, so too blood vessel mutations...

"..it is not possible for evolutionists to make up a plausible scenario for the origination of either the giraffe's long neck or its complicated blood pressure regulating system.

Another lie. As above, you have been provided links that prove otherwise.

5. Could all those special parts of the giraffe simply evolve together by chance? Was it all an accident?

Answer: No! The notion that this all happened by chance is a real 'tall story'!" If you still believe that popular myth, please go to Darwin's Black Box and read about the amazing information code in DNA. The only explanation that makes sense is in the Bible:

Attempt to misslead... no... all these traits DIDN'T evole together simultaneously... but that isn't what evolutionary theory claims. Evolution is the sum of many, many small mutations over extremely long periods of time, you don't have to spontaneously have all the beneficial mutations in one generation, as evolution works perfectly well as an incremental, iterative process
​

 

[knowitall]

Lie. You have been provided with links that demonstrate otherwise.Who claims short necked creatures died out? The theory says only that long necks confered an advantage, that led to the occupation of a certain ecological niche. Evolution doesn't always mean extinction for all but one successor species... indeed, this is rare. Different advantages result in branching families, which is why we see so many related, yet different formsPRATT as neck mutations accumulate, so too blood vessel mutations... Another lie. As above, you have been provided links that prove otherwise.Attempt to misslead... no... all these traits DIDN'T evole together simultaneously... but that isn't what evolutionary theory claims. Evolution is the sum of many, many small mutations over extremely long periods of time, you don't have to spontaneously have all the beneficial mutations in one generation, as evolution works perfectly well as an incremental, iterative process
[/INDENT]

who has been around to actually observe this happen? no one , so i wont believe it,

as for the different generations of giraffe what a load of crap, who puts together this rubbish? how on earth can anyone know all this is a fact, who observed it?

 

[MaynardGKrebbs]

as for the different generations of giraffe what a load of crap, who puts together this rubbish? how on earth can anyone know all this is a fact, who observed it?

Hey, good answer! You can't refute the evidence, can't produce any evidence to support your claim, so you don't even try, just call it rubbish and move on! You are a typical creationist!

 

[Morcova]

who has been around to actually observe this happen? no one , so i wont believe it,

as for the different generations of giraffe what a load of crap, who puts together this rubbish? how on earth can anyone know all this is a fact, who observed it?

If you applied this argument to all of your religious beliefs you'd be an atheist.

 

[MoonLancer]

If you applied this argument to all of your religious beliefs you'd be an atheist.

oh man... good one.