Debate between Dan Cardinale and Kent Hovind

[AV1611VET]

There was no ridicule and I take offence at the accusation.

Sorry. Poor word choice. Feel free to fill in the blank yourself, then.

You claim you follow basic doctrine. You imply you do so routinely. I have asked you twice to provide examples; you have dissembled. I'll let others judge who is looking bad, but I'm finished here.

For crying out loud!

Here: What is a Christian Deist?

You can't get more basic than those clear-cut fundamentals.

 

[Phred]

By the way, just to be clear. There is no "macro" evolution or "micro" evolution. No parents ever gave birth to a child they did not recognize. Ever. Evolution happens in tiny increments across generations. An organism dies with the genes it was born with. So Evolution takes time. Lots and lots of time. Regardless of what these idiots keep screaming. If an organism cannot breed with those a generation or two removed that's how things start to really change since any changes to its genome can no longer re-enter the original population. But they'll just look at you and say, "but it's still a lizard." Sure... for now.

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[o_mlly]

First, Dan says, "We know feathers evolved from scales …" -- not "suspect" or "speculate" but "know".

Dan then argues we know that because men forced expression of feathers from scales in the lab. Isn't that evidence more likely of intelligent design? Kinda like Covid-19? Not random and, certainly, not natural.

Sorry, Dan. I had to turn the video off after such a gaffe. No evidence there for macroevoluiton. Please let me know if Dan's evidence gets any better in the next 90 minutes as I have a life.

 

[Ophiolite]

AV is the ultimate pigeon on a chessboard. He'll flutter down and insist you play with him. By his rules. Which he immediately grows bored with and ... well, you know what happens.

Pigeons in the real world have been called the "vermin of the skies". Sometimes they are culled. The equivalent on a forum is taking the occassional pot shot, in the hope - sometimes realised - of scaring them off. *

*No wildlife was injured in the presentation of this metaphor.

 

[Ophiolite]

.For crying out loud!

Less of the faux anger. Had you supplied this at the outset both of us would have invested less effort in this exchange. This is an example of where your posts are not in good faith, but are seemingly designed to frustrate and confuse your readers. I would ask you stop it, but it seems to be your raison d'etre.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, just to be clear. There is no "macro" evolution or "micro" evolution.

QV please:

Microevolution is defined as changes in allele frequency that can be observed within a population.

SOURCE

Just to quote Laugh-In:

"Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls."

 

[Phred]

QV please:

SOURCE

Just to quote Laugh-In:

"Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls."

There is Evolution. Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency observed within a population. It's you that tries to define that change in terms of "micro" and "macro." Yet, when pressed you can't tell me the difference. I'm convinced you expect a cat to give birth to a dog. And as I've already pointed out, no parents ever gave birth to a child they did not recognize.

However, once several million years go by a dinosaur might not recognize the chicken that is its direct descendant.

In a hundred million years a small burrowing mammal won't recognize its human descendant.

What part of these is considered "macro" and what is considered "micro" there Spanky?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet, when pressed you can't tell me the difference.

Oh, I can't?

You've read every one of my 3,837,281 posts, have you?

Here, I'll do it again -- just for you:

• microevolution: species giving rise to another species
  
• macroevolution: kind giving rise to another kind

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I can't?

You've read every one of my 3,837,281 posts, have you?

Here, I'll do it again -- just for you:

• microevolution: species giving rise to another species
  
• macroevolution: kind giving rise to another kind

Nope, both of your definitions are wrong. The second one is fractally wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, both of your definitions are wrong. The second one is fractally wrong.

That's fine. I'm wrong.

But when pressed, that's the answers you're going to get.

 

[Phred]

Oh, I can't?

You've read every one of my 3,837,281 posts, have you?

Here, I'll do it again -- just for you:

• microevolution: species giving rise to another species
  
• macroevolution: kind giving rise to another kind

I've read far too many of your inane posts. Most are stupid throwaways with no substance.

So clearly define what a "species" is and what a "kind" is. Biology doesn't use the word "kind" spanky. That's a Biblical word taken from the story of Noah. Since you're making up your own definitions we need to be clear. [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are you talking about?

 

[AV1611VET]

So clearly define what a "species" is and what a "kind" is.

Sure.

In evolutionary bookkeeping, "species" is the credit; and "kind" is the debit.

Put another way, in a binomial, "species" is on the right; and "kind" is on the left.

For example, in "Hesperopithecus haroldcookii," Hesperopithecus is the kind (genus); and harolcookii is the species.

Biology doesn't use the word "kind" spanky.

That's too bad, Bozo.

I'm not required to know this stuff for the final.

 

[driewerf]

That's fine. I'm wrong.

But when pressed, that's the answers you're going to get.

So unlike science you are not willing to correct yourself, or to correct previous mistakes. You are unwilling to improve. Or, unlike science, you will gives wrong answers, knowing that they are wrong.

I assume you also see yourself as superior to science.

 

[Frank Robert]

First, Dan says, "We know feathers evolved from scales …" -- not "suspect" or "speculate" but "know".

Dan then argues we know that because men forced expression of feathers from scales in the lab. Isn't that evidence more likely of intelligent design? Kinda like Covid-19? Not random and, certainly, not natural.

Dan would agree that it was not natural, something forced is not natural.

The prediction was feathers from scales and they got feathers. If you want to criticize the experiment the place to do so would be the method not the result.

If the result is evidence for ID then you would have a testable hypothesis which would be a first for ID.

Sorry, Dan. I had to turn the video off after such a gaffe. No evidence there for macroevoluiton.

So you say.

 

[o_mlly]

Dan would agree that it was not natural, something forced is not natural.

The prediction was feathers from scales and they got feathers. If you want to criticize the experiment the place to do so would be the method not the result.

No, that's just what Dan wants you to believe. Dan comes across as more of an evo zealot than scientist. He exaggerates the results of a lab experiment from "suggests" or "may" to epistemic certainty w/o giving us the source. So we have to guess where Dan came up with his evidence.

Which comes first: the chicken or the alligator? One of the experiments injected chicken "feather" genes into alligator eggs. The "chickogator" that resulted had what the researchers identified as "proto-feathers", whatever that is.

What do you think those "chickogators" tasted like?

Investigators amazed by the huge discovery regarding dinosaurs

But exactly how the outer skin and underlying tissues specify feathers versus scales and ultimately the evolution of flight has remained a puzzle. … Scientists speculate these primitive “proto-feathers” of feathered dinosaurs …​

Comprehensive molecular and cellular studies suggest avian scutate scales are secondarily derived from feathers, and more distant from reptilian scales - PubMed

When we compared the expression of the recently identified feather-specific genes and scale-specific genes in these skin appendages, we found that at the molecular level alligator scales are significantly different from both chicken feathers and chicken scales. ... Thus, our results suggest that chicken and alligator scales formed independently through convergent evolution​

 

[Frank Robert]

No, that's just what Dan wants you to believe. Dan comes across as more of an evo zealot than scientist. He exaggerates the results of a lab experiment from "suggests" or "may" to epistemic certainty w/o giving us the source. So we have to guess where Dan came up with his evidence.

The sources are easily found. The research has been published in Scientific Reports and the full paper is freely available.

Which comes first: the chicken or the alligator? One of the experiments injected chicken "feather" genes into alligator eggs. The "chickogator" that resulted had what the researchers identified as "proto-feathers", whatever that is.

If we consider Archaeopteryx as the first bird then that was 150 million years ago while alligators developed 245 million years ago.

I think proto here refers to feathers developed from genes of the last common ancestor of chickens and alligators.

What do you think those "chickogators" tasted like?

I like both but I imagine that I would be surprised.

Investigators amazed by the huge discovery regarding dinosaurs

But exactly how the outer skin and underlying tissues specify feathers versus scales and ultimately the evolution of flight has remained a puzzle. … Scientists speculate these primitive “proto-feathers” of feathered dinosaurs …​

​

It sounds like they are referring to the earliest feathers in dinosaurs.

​

Comprehensive molecular and cellular studies suggest avian scutate scales are secondarily derived from feathers, and more distant from reptilian scales - PubMed

When we compared the expression of the recently identified feather-specific genes and scale-specific genes in these skin appendages, we found that at the molecular level alligator scales are significantly different from both chicken feathers and chicken scales. ... Thus, our results suggest that chicken and alligator scales formed independently through convergent evolution​

It sounds reasonable because bird feathers developed later from avian dinosaurs than reptiles that split off earlier from the common ancestor of dinosaurs and reptiles.

 

[o_mlly]

The sources are easily found. The research has been published in Scientific Reports and the full paper is freely available.

The link is for the alga to algae paper; not the scale to feather paper that Dan did not provide.

Without Dan's source to support his claim, we are just guessing at what he's talking about.

 

[Frank Robert]

The link is for the alga to algae paper; not the scale to feather paper that Dan did not provide.

Without Dan's source to support his claim, we are just guessing at what he's talking about.

I don't understand what you are referring to. Alga is singular, algae is plural.
Don't forget this is from a debate between two biologist, if Ken wanted a source he could have asked for it, so there it isn't likely that Dan was hiding anything.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't understand what you are referring to. Alga is singular, algae is plural.

That's right. Latin first declension, if memory serves. -a singular cell, ae - plural - multi-cell.

Don't forget this is from a debate between two biologist, if Ken wanted a source he could have asked for it, so there it isn't likely that Dan was hiding anything.

I didn't suggest Dan was hiding anything. He just did not give the source for his claim. Rational people necessarily must dismiss gratuitously that which is given gratuitously.