No, what it demonstrate is your ignorance in biology and the usages of terms to label people.
Okay fact proven. I DO see your problem. You have no clue about the subject. ANyone who knows anything about thi subject would know perfectly well what the furor over her work was and knows it was not limited to YECs as you just tried to beg. Please come back when you have done some reading.
A simple google search for her name is bound to bring it up
You do know what the word ADD means right?
IF you reference her work and don't know how other scientists (not YECs) first responded to it you are not even remotely in a position to talk about ignorance. Google awaits to educate you.
Since you acknowledge my ingonace, then what is the source of your claim?
Google is not a reference.
There are a whole slew of lineages structures that do not exist today in both the evolutionary and creationist framework.
Diversities within species and similarities between them and both sides accept that a whole bunch of them are extinct. Merely using the criteria of "other lineages" that we know about ignores that.
Take a typical one - feathers. Historically people have taken feathers in the fossil record as to be associated with modern birds but in the creationist framework (or logically) nothing excludes other groups from having them and having gone extinct.
Yes I am being simplistic for brevity now but - a darwinist digs them up and voila he is sure he has found a transitional.
Ummmmm....pretty obvious. Your own admission you were not aware of the controversy. That what ignorance means - "not knowing something. I trust you accept yourself as a source for yourself?
NO its a place where people who admit to being ignorant about a subject can go do a search and educate themselves without asking others to educate them because they are kind of lazy to type a few words and hit return.
Sorry I can't waste more time going back and forth with someone who has pretty much admitted he doesn't know what is being discussed.
Toodles
There are no differences. You got caught in being hypocritical. You made a sweeping statement about true creationists then are begging everyone else is wrong if they make statements about another group. Now you are just trying to rationalize your way out of having to admit your position is hypocritical but it will never work.
You asked for a clarification I gave you one. Now you try to tell me that I am lying?
.
However I understand your respond as your remark was indeed intended as a pejorative remark against all atheists.
If you are always happy then why didn't you? Read the request again and see if you can answer
what you instead provided (as if it was proof of a prediction)was a postdiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction
Hopefully you now understand the difference. The problem with saying something was predicted after the fact is something I would have thought an atheist would understand not promote as a legitimate answer.
Meanwhile unfortunately the link wasn't even instructive. Who didn't know about fusions
http://www.theblaze.com/contributio...nsus-could-benefit-from-more-fact-checking-2/
the prediction was made quite some time before the confirmation
I understand also that, in theorising about common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees, it was predicted that there must have been some form of 'adjustment' in the chromosomal structure.
P.S. Steve
Don't even try moving the goal post. Your post is here that I responded to
present a paper or article of sufficient timing (That can be PROVEN) to be considered a legit PREdiction that some form of adjustment to chromosome structure was made independent of/predating the discovery of that adjustment
Or you got zip.
Again steve. An article or provable source of the PREDICTION that dates BEFORE the alleged fulfillment. You know the one that you alleged came out of
"theorising about common ancestry'
rather than studying the genome.
Ummm.. that one
I confess I am quite bewildered at your obdurance.
4. The theory, then, would predict that there must have been some mechanism responsible for the 'reduction' in the number of human chromosomes. Several explanations would be supported by the theory, including the fusing of chromosomes during human evolution.
I confess I am quite bewildered at your obdurance. Let's see if you can follow the 'bouncing ball' on this one.
1. For quite some time, we have known that the chromosome count for chimpanzees (48) differs from that of humans (46). In fact, I can remember my lecturers discussing the difference when I studied some biology, 60+ years ago.
2. Evolutionary theory posits that, amongst other claims, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
3. The difference in chromosome count between two closely related species appears to present a major problem for that claim. How could such a major genetic shift occur in such a relatively short period of genetic history?
4. The theory, then, would predict that there must have been some mechanism responsible for the 'reduction' in the number of human chromosomes. Several explanations would be supported by the theory, including the fusing of chromosomes during human evolution.
5. This prediction is seen to hold at chromosome 2, which shows clear evidence of this fusion having taken place, thanks to the improvements in our analytical technology over the last decade or so.
I really don't know how it could be made any clearer to you? You appear to be desperately clinging to some very technical, semantic objection over the use of 'predict'. If that's the case, well cling away! It strikes me that those who are reduced to arguing out the minutiae of an issue simply have no issue to argue!
The larger picture is clear. Evolutionary theory, in keeping with most robust scientific theories, has a predictive quality to its usefulness. From Tiktaalik, through to chromosome 2, to the use of the theory in predicting the outcome of disease research, to the 'out of Africa' theory, to the prediction of insect wings from gills, its implications are quite obvious.
The larger picture is clear. Evolutionary theory, in keeping with most robust scientific theories, has a predictive quality to its usefulness. From Tiktaalik,
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
It is a 1991 paper, in which the researchers report that they have seen the likelihood of the fusion of telomeres. However, they concede that further research will be required to confirm this as the mechanism involved. They do describe this process as the "likeliest explanation". Now, that is a predictive statement. And that prediction has been subsequently borne out in recent research.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?