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.
When texts tell you that cars were created, and tests confirm that a bicycle cannot turn into a car, ignoring the evidence and lining up pictures of cars to compare them does not spawn the need for an alternate interpretation. There has always been the interpretation. It has nothing to do with Darwinism. And this is the one confirmed by science.
I'm not worried. Statistics show that the more educated you are, the less likely you are to reject the theory of evolution.
Its undeniable!Greg, are you denying the scientifically documented Transitional forms?
http://speedhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1.jpg
http://media.techeblog.com/images/beetles_7.jpg
http://www.carblog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peugeot-hybrid3-evolution-concept-1.jpg
http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/1/1/011522.jpg
OK, I think we miscommunicated. I was using the Darwin eye quote as an example of quotemining, to make sure you were familiar with the deceptive practice of quotemining, and to make sure we agree that quotemining is deceptive.
Those are perfect examples of why vehicles cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy. A motorcycle fused to a Beetle completely violates a nested hierarchy. Nothing like that is seen in the animal kingdom. No, the platypus does not simply have a duck's bill fused to it's face -- the bill is modified from mammalian mouth parts, not avian mouth parts. Hence, the platypus does not violate the nested hierarchy.Greg, are you denying the scientifically documented Transitional forms?
http://speedhawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/1.jpg
http://media.techeblog.com/images/beetles_7.jpg
http://www.carblog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/peugeot-hybrid3-evolution-concept-1.jpg
http://images.passionperformance.ca/photos/0/1/1/011522.jpg
It {use of the eye quote from Darwin} may or may not be {the deceptive practice of quotemining}.
On one hand, the poster may not be aware of the context and the unintentional result.
On the second hand, they may just be blind to the ramifications of the surrounding text.
On my third hand, it's ridiculous to think that people will make serious worldview decisions based on a quote that has been pulled out of context.
On my forth hand, why complain about quotemining used during a debate when it's the PERFECT opportunity to restore the quote BACK into it's correct context and direct people's attention both to the original text and the author originals intent.
Nope its the features of a motorcycle and the features of a car together as a transitional form. To say that manufacturers copy the traits of another in the building of a new model look at the human system, with traits shared in man, from the beast, when man is completely different, and not a beast. This alone refutes the nested hierarchy. The "transitional vehicle" refutes the no. 2 life line, transitional forms, and the number one, common decent. As we see this is designed structures, no Darwinism required.Those are perfect examples of why vehicles cannot be arranged into a nested hierarchy. A motorcycle fused to a Beetle completely violates a nested hierarchy. Nothing like that is seen in the animal kingdom. No, the platypus does not simply have a duck's bill fused to it's face -- the bill is modified from mammalian mouth parts, not avian mouth parts. Hence, the platypus does not violate the nested hierarchy.
They can't be transitional because vehicles don't reproduce. You're being silly.Nope its the features of a motorcycle and the features of a car together as a transitional form.
Good point. In fact, I do that. However, in any civil discussion, it is useful to start on some common ground, that common ground being that we all (hopefully) agree that deceptive practices like quotemining are frowned upon. If the creationist won't agree on that, then that in itself shows that we've got someone who sees deception as acceptable, and thus has a pretty messed up moral compass.
Overall, on this point I think you (Skywriting) and I mostly agree. I think in any specific example of quotemining we'd probably see it similarly. Do you agree?
Papias
They can't be transitional because vehicles don't reproduce. You're being silly.
They don't reproduce in the same way.
I was actually talking about this post.Greg, did you read post #39? It was a direct request for information you said was posted, but don't seem to be helping me know what you are talking about. Please let us know if you looked at it, and what your response is. Thanks-
Papias
No, they do not reproduce at all. People replicate them, which isn't anywhere near analogous to a living system. Living systems self-replicate, and they do it imperfectly. Machines do not. This is why they are TERRIBLE analogues for explaining variation in living things.
The details are what disqualify your vehicular analogies from consideration. You should pay more attention to the details.Don't get so hung up on details.
Tell that to this population of wall lizards that evolved new cranial and stomach adaptations in 30+ years to survive on a primarily vegetarian diet:And your wrong about imperfect replication. There isn't enough error to account for much of anything.
I was actually talking about this post.
And Greg, do you understand why greenness isn't evidence against a nested hierarchy? All your posts seem to be just repetitions of "but look at what is green!". Pointless.
And yes vehicles can be placed in a nested hierarchy.
Read post referenced again. And the one ofter that.Greg wrote:
OK, I see that (in a different thread, so I wounldn't call it a response to my post, but regardless). That post of yours only reiterated superficial things that cross boundaries. As I've said many points, finding that is irrelevant. It' irrelevant because a nested hierarchy doesn't claim that each and every type of adjective fits the hierarchy, because many are superficial. I even tried to illustrate this with:
Papias wrote:
See how the property of being green goes across the nested hierarchy of life (some frogs, snakes, birds, and starfish are all green), and how this fact is irrelevant, because to show a nested hierarchy doesn't work, you have to show that the listed features don't nest? Just picking out other features out of the air shows nothing (other than that you don't understand what a nested hierarchy is).
So your pointing back to a previous post where you still don't understand this doesn't help, in fact, it makes it look like you still don't understand that finding features outside of those listed for the hierarchy doesn't "break" the hierarchy.
As a reminder, you claimed, several times that::You can see that I've put life forms in a nested hierarchy where each feature I listed doesn't violate the hierarchy. We are waiting for you to do the same for cars, listing a dozen or so features (which aren't names), where none of the features you list violate the hierarchy. Look, you can even pick your own features.
Greg wrote
Still waiting, after dozens of posts........
Papias
Read post referenced again. And the one ofter that.
Biggest Nest:
1 Is cellular (made of a cell or cells)
2 Has cells with a nucleus & mitochondria
3 Is made up of many cells, not just one
4a contains chloroplasts, lacks muscle and nerve tissue.
4b lacks chloroplasts, has muscle and nerve tissues
4a1 can reproduce by spores
4a2 can reproduce by seed
4a2a has one seed leaf
4a2b has two seed leaves
4a2a1 produces aloe burn gel
(also within 4) :
5 lacks spinal cord
5a has stinging tentacles
5b lacks stinging tentacles
6a has spinal cord and a post-anal tail at some point in life
6b has ventral nerve cord
7 has hinged single jaw
8a has feathers
8a1 has one fovea
8a2 has two foveas
8b has true (schuted) hair at some point in life
8b1 has non-placental birth
8b2 has placental birth
8b2a has hooves
8b2b has large, fast growing incisors
8b2c has GULOP loss at certain genomic location
8b2c1 has tail as adult
8b2c2 wears clothes
(smallest nests)
Now I know we could make a much more detailed nested hierarchy, with many more levels and dozens more features, and it would still be fully nested. However, this is a start I count around 15-20 features here. Since Greg has said he can make a nested hierarchy of cars, it should be easy for him to make a nested hierarchy of car with just a dozen features (that arent names).
I don't think you did. Traits like "green" are not used.Greg wrote:
I did Greg. Can you show some reason for me to believe that you don't think your mentioning of some other feature (like a creature being green) is relevant to a nested hierarchy?
From reading those posts, it is clear that you think finding other features that don't fit the nested hierarchy is relevant, when of course, as anyone who understand a nested hierarchy knows, it is not. The whole basis of your objections for page after page shows that you don't get what a nested hierarchy is, and those posts (especially) show that.
Now, here is the nested hierarcy from the other thread. You have still told us you can make a nested hierarchy of cars, and here we are, still waiting.
Papias wrote:
Papias
I don't think you did. Traits like "green" are not used.
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?