Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More like it's the Reader's Digest condensed version.On the contrary, it's got hundreds of missing links in it.
Look again. The picture you posted was of Hawaiian honeycreepers, not Galapagos finches.
Go back and look at post #367, which is the post I replied to. The picture there is this:Is that what you are resorting to? Misleading people? Intentional or not has yet to be determined.
Hawaiian honey creepers.
Darwin's Finches. And here are the real finches, not just drawings. Real finches
Picture posted. Actually an article with a picture.
Why would a flipper be useless to a whale? It is perfectly suited to what the whale is and it's environment. Oh, oh, you mean from what you believe was once a land mammal and evolved into a sea animal, even if all life evolved from the oceans? Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince us we were once germs in a sea?Also, you note that vestigial structures are currently understood to be structures that retain little of their original function, but then your argument is focused on the idea that vestigial structures are useless.
Go back and look at post #367, which is the post I replied to. The picture there is this:
That picture is labeled "Darwin's finches", but the birds pictured are Hawaiian honeycreepers. (The name "Maui parrotbill" kind of gives that fact away.)
I responded to a post that talked about finches, and that included a pictures of finches, presumably illustrating the statements made in the post. My response noted that the statements were not true of the finches pictured. My quotation was accurate, and my point was correct. Going back and rereading the post, I see nothing wrong with my post, nor anything "out of sequence" about it. I didn't even realize that lifepsyop thought he was talking about Darwin's finches and had accidentally posted a picture of honeycreepers (if indeed that's what happened). In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about here, or why you think my factually correct (and polite) post was wrong somehow, or why you think I'm to blame for you accusing me of being deceptive. Nor do I care. He post the wrong picture. Big deal.Go back and reread the post. We were at that time discussing variation within different breeds of the same Kind - of which birds are. We had not yet then even started talking about the Finch per-se. So I am to blame for your taking things out of sequence?
I responded to a post that talked about finches, and that included a pictures of finches, presumably illustrating the statements made in the post. My response noted that the statements were not true of the finches pictured. My quotation was accurate, and my point was correct. Going back and rereading the post, I see nothing wrong with my post, nor anything "out of sequence" about it. I didn't even realize that lifepsyop thought he was talking about Darwin's finches and had accidentally posted a picture of honeycreepers (if indeed that's what happened). In fact, I have no idea what you're talking about here, or why you think my factually correct (and polite) post was wrong somehow, or why you think I'm to blame for you accusing me of being deceptive. Nor do I care. He post the wrong picture. Big deal.
You're describing what you think would happen in a situation that is different from reality. That's the very definition of a hypothetical. In any case this doesn't address the argument being made. Why should the similarly of human and nonhuman ear muscles despite our minimal ability to use them not be evidence for descent from a nonhuman ancestor? Perhaps this might have to wait until we resolve the point below.Those were not hypotheticals. That is textbook evolutionary reasoning.
Shared Trait Presence - evolution did it
Unique Trait Presence - evolution did it
Trait Absence - evolution did it
Expected similarities - evolution did it
Unexpected similarities - evolution did it
Expected differences - evolution did it
Unexpected differences - evolution did it
You've missed the point of the analogy though. Remember that you contend that because the specific pattern of the fossil record could be different (e.g.birds are most closely related to ceratosaurs rather than to maniraptorans) and still fit within the evolutionary framework, no specific pattern can be considered evidence for evolution. But this is like saying that because assemblage X could show that Australia was attached to North America instead of Antarctica, we can't consider the fact that there is any relationship apparent at all to be evidence that the continents have shifted greatly.No specific pattern is evidence for evolution, since so many could have been accommodated.
Sure, but remember that evolutionists are using the specific stratigraphic fossil ordering as evidence, not simply that an order exists at all. As far as public-relations goes, they know that wouldn't be persuasive enough, so evolutionists have to lead the public to believe that every major animal group is fossilized right where they expect it to be. That is one of the biggest illusions buttressing popular acceptance of evolution theory.
I suppose vestigiality (since it is a term already equivocated into oblivion) can mean either one.. if evolutionists believe they can still get away with a "zero function" position, then they'll go for it. If function is later identified, they'll just sidestep over to their "little function" position.
I accused no one of deception. The only one who's accused anyone of deception was you. Remember?Then what you are saying is you had no clue to what was being discussed, but decided to chime in anyways and just accuse people of deception?
I said nothing about you posting anything, including a picture of a finch.Accuse me of posting pictures not about finches in a discussion that then wasn't about finches?
Honeycreepers very rarely interbreed -- as I said in my original response.And the picture has a finch in it, life just used it for quick reference because in the post he got it from of mine we were discussing breeds in general.
Although I'll give 10 to 1 odds if we put them together they'll eventually interbreed.
I know. That's why I thought he was talking about the picture. He said something about finches, and posted a picture of finches. They just turned out not to be the finches he was talking about.Since even the Hawaiian honeysuckle is in reality a Finch.
The difference is that the honeycreepers are more diverged genetically than the Darwin's finches, if I remember correctly, and do form clearly delineated species. The most diverged among them are roughly as different genetically as humans and chimpanzees.I did just grab a random finch image without checking it. Here are some of the Galapagos varieties. In any case, I think it would be odd to suggest the same principle observed at the Galapagos wouldn't also apply to the varieties seen with the honeycreepers.
I think you'll find that I never argued that vestigial structures lacked function.Why would a flipper be useless to a whale? It is perfectly suited to what the whale is and it's environment. Oh, oh, you mean from what you believe was once a land mammal and evolved into a sea animal, even if all life evolved from the oceans? Aren't you supposed to be trying to convince us we were once germs in a sea?
So didn't flippers in reality evolve long before legs? So why even under evolution would I assume flippers were vestigial structures when those structures evolved long before the structures they are supposed to be vestigial to?
And wouldn't going back to a previous evolutionary stage be devolving, not evolving?
The difference is that the honeycreepers are more diverged genetically than the Darwin's finches, if I remember correctly, and do form clearly delineated species. The most diverged among them are roughly as different genetically as humans and chimpanzees.
Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.
Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html
Of course its not absurd. You just wish it was absurd.First of all, it is absurd to characterize these traits as 'evidence' for common descent.
And we can watch these traits coming and going. For example, the muscle that lifts the tail in mammals is on its way out . . . some people have it (uselessly) and some people don't. The extra toes on the legs of horses . . . now reduced to shin splints . . . on their way out. The wings of Kiwis . . . now reduced to hidden tiny things . . . on their way out.Evolutionists say the presence of those ear traits are because they were conserved from a distant common ancestor.
If those ear traits were absent then evolutionists would say natural selection removed them.
If they were unique in humans then evolutionists would say natural selection selected novel traits in a hominid lineage.
They are evidence for common descent in the same way that being able to predict a penny will land on heads or tails is evidence for one being psychic. Of course evolutionists love to use this type of illusion of evidence.
I'm not so sure how "important" it can be since nobody who has one taken out seems to miss it. It has its immunological functions . . . as does the whole digestive tract anyway.That being said, evolutionists have shown a disturbingly unscientific trend of labeling any trait whose function is not readily apparent as being "vestigial" for the sole purpose of trying to score points for their theory. Important functions have since been discovered in some of these "vestigial" traits, like the human appendix for example.
At first, evolutionists characterized "vestigial" traits as being useless left-overs... they then quickly changed their tune so that "vestigial" means "only some function".. thus moving the concept of vestigiality into the realm of total equivocation and ambiguity, the evolutionists' favorite camping spot.
As far as the ear muscles go, just because there may be no apparent function for them, does not mean no function exists. Even if they serve no purpose in a fully developed human, that does not mean the developing tissues do not play some role in organizational or embyronic stages of the developing human.
In any case, I'm not in the least bit concerned of somehow proving what they are there for, as the evolutionist's argument is so woefully inept to begin with.
Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.
Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html
Quite right. Our ancestors were humans.
DNA confirms human common ancestry because we already know humans descend from humans.
No assumptions need to be made here.
Genetic similarity will not tell you that humans and fish share a common ancestor.
You will always need to impose your mystical evolutionary assumptions that fish-like animals can and did eventually give rise to humans over many generations.
We give you what you claim you insist on, an example of a vestige with no current use, and you STILL deny its a vestige or counts as evidence. Plainly you are not driven by the evidence, something else drives you to deny the evidence.
And primates. And mammals. And Tetrapods.
If we already know it, then we wouldn't need DNA to confirm it.
But you are wrong off course. DNA confirms that not only do we share ancestors with humans, we also share ancestors with chimps. And bonobo's. And gorilla's. And lions. And just about every other eukaryote.
Indeed, no assumptions necessary. It's all in there, in that DNA molecule.
Indeed it won't. But phylogenies, nested hierarchies, WILL.
There's nothing "mystical" about "mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat" coupled with the laws of large numbers.
There's nothing to "assume" about facts in the DNA and phylogeny.
Humans are classified as primates, mammals, and tetrapods
So yes, again, humans descended from humans.
DNA confirms specific relations of different human lineages. There are no assumptions to be made because we already know humans descend from humans.
We are confirming the details of something that was never in any dispute. This is a very simple concept.
We don't need to believe that the Darwin fairies transformed humans into different types of creatures over time in order to confirm DNA relations of different humans.
This is the fundamental Darwinian assumption you always have to hide and pretend isn't there but it is plain to see.
Sorry, I do not equate imagination with confirmation.
Sorry, I do not share in that hallucination.
Not at all.
No there isn't. It's when you believe that those processes build humans, lions, elephants, etc. out of fish over time that you are waist deep in Darwinian superstition.
If it wasn't your only shred of hope for having a materialistic explanation for biodiversity
But since it is your only hope
evolutionists simply gather around each other and reassure each other that it is plausible and demand that everyone accept it as self-evident.
Sorry, but I am just not that gullible.
Based on what you've said so far, we can assume you're labeling your assumptions as "facts".
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?