My Oryctolagus Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And not really, no. It would cause a reevaluation of what evolutionary theory says about the biological history of rabbits.
But since rabbits do not chew cud, as you have been told many, many, MANY times already and still choose to ignore, I think that the theory of evolution is safe.

Although why you think that it's in danger because of the poor reading and thinking skills of a non-named American Baptist is beyond me.

 

[Jimmy D]

Please note that the one's who considered it problematic when they first saw and examine it were your evolutionist scientists not me. They even thought it was some type of a joke and searched for evidence of stitching of parts together because they initially fount it a very perplexing specimen in the evolutionary sense. After all, it has a duck like bill and webbed feet and lays eggs, which would be more appropriate to birds and reptiles while sporting a coat of fur with a beaver-like tail typical of mammals. It is also venomous which is rare among mammals



But once they got over the initial shock they immediately set to work and fit it right in.

.

Right, all those 18th century evolutionists.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But I am not talking about photo-shopped absurdities. I am talking about real animals that they might discover with unusual features. Do you understand why that makes a difference?

If they found an animal that proved TOE wrong? I can see how that would shake things up. But the platypus isn't a problem despite your efforts to imply that it is one.

Do I hear AV sidling up with his Nebraska man story?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Would cud-chewing rabbits pwn evolution?

I'm pretty sure rabbits can't pawn evolution. I don't think very many pawnshops even deal with rabbits.

 

[Radrook]

If they found an animal that proved TOE wrong? I can see how that would shake things up. But the platypus isn't a problem despite your efforts to imply that it is one.

Do I hear AV sidling up with his Nebraska man story?

Here we go again!

I clearly explained that it was initially perceived as a problem but was later accepted as compatible with the evolutionary theory. So obviously it isn't viewed as a problem now-right? So if it isn't a problem now-how am I implying that it is a problem now pray tell?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even if the beast suggested is one with bulbous melancholy blue eyes on the bottom of its feet or bovine feet on the top of a hideous heptagonal head evolutionists would work feverishly to finally find some newfangled a way to fit it into their freakish scheme. Numbsayin?

Didn't you claim once that your beliefs concerning biological diversity do not clash with theistic evolution?

Because this post of yours looks suspiciously like something a YEC would say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please note that the one's who considered it problematic when they first saw and examine it were your evolutionist scientists not me.

Did they still consider it problematic after taking a closer look?
Why not?

But once they got over the initial shock they immediately set to work and fit it right in.

You have that backwards. That it fits into the evolutionary history of life was not a goal of the work. It was the conclusion thereof.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That evolutionists will find a way to fit any animal into the evolutionary scheme

It sounds as if you are insinuating that the platypus in reality does NOT fit into the "evolutionary scheme". Is that correct? As usual, you are being ambigous again... Could you perhaps clearly state your point concerning the platypus?

If it is your opinion that in reality it actually really does NOT fit into evolution theory, please explain why you think that.

Is that statement false?

yes, very.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here we go again!

I clearly explained that it was initially perceived as a problem but was later accepted as compatible with the evolutionary theory. So obviously it isn't viewed as a problem now-right? So if it isn't a problem now-how am I implying that it is a problem now pray tell?

The great thing with innuendo is that you can always claim you never meant it. Let me remind you of your exact words:
"Why not? They haven't failed so far. Look at the platypus."

So, if you were not trying to imply anything, why did you say what you said? Your belated explanation only came when you were called on your implication.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here we go again!

I clearly explained that it was initially perceived as a problem but was later accepted as compatible with the evolutionary theory. So obviously it isn't viewed as a problem now-right? So if it isn't a problem now-how am I implying that it is a problem now pray tell?

You're the one that brought up the platypus as if it exposes some kind of fundamental flaw in evolutionary science.

As usual, you are being extremely unclear again.

Do you have an actual point to make about the platypus, yes or no?
Is it your opinion that the classification of this creature in context of evolution theory is incorrect? If yes, how and why?

If no..... well... okay then.
Then it seems as if you bringing up platypus was pretty meaningless.

However, it is rather noteworthy that the platypus is a common center of attention of YEC arguments rooted in a severe ignorance on evolution theory, to argue against some strawman version of evolution theory.

I don't think that that is coincidental.

 

[Radrook]

Right, all those 18th century evolutionists.

Charles Robert Darwin, February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,[4] best known for his contributions to the science of evolution.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#endnote_Anone He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors,[5] and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.[6]

Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.[7][8
Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Charles Robert Darwin, February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,[4] best known for his contributions to the science of evolution. He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors,[5] and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.[6]

Darwin published his theory of evolution with compelling evidence in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species.[7][8
Charles Darwin - Wikipedia

That's the 19th century, not the 18th.

 

[Radrook]

The great thing with innuendo is that you can always claim you never meant it. Let me remind you of your exact words:
"Why not? They haven't failed so far. Look at the platypus."

So, if you were not trying to imply anything, why did you say what you said? Your belated explanation only came when you were called on your implication.

I did compare the Platypus to an animal that would indeed appear unusual and which evolutionists would find unusual due to its obviously unusual appearance. But I am not saying that they have difficulties fitting it in. Am I?
I am saying that no matter how unusual the animal might be-they will always find a way to reconcile it with the evolutionary theory. The platypus seems like a good example. Why do you consider it a bad example?

 

[archer75]

I'm surprised to see non--existent animals being sort of cited as evidence.

What if God spoke directly to you and proved it was really him and told you that the TOE was perfectly true, but he was planning to magic in some double-jointed Sanskrit-speaking alligator-bunnies just to mess with people? Would you:

-ask if they would make good pets
-continue to deny the TOE
-tell people about your experience on CF even though no one would believe you
-other

 

[Radrook]

I'm surprised to see non--existent animals being sort of cited as evidence.

What if God spoke directly to you and proved it was really him and told you that the TOE was perfectly true, but he was planning to magic in some double-jointed Sanskrit-speaking alligator-bunnies just to mess with people? Would you:

-ask if they would make good pets
-continue to deny the TOE
-tell people about your experience on CF even though no one would believe you
-other

I don't understand what you mean by TOE.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't understand what you mean by TOE.

Theory of Evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand what you mean by TOE.

Theory of Evolution

 

[Radrook]

Theory of Evolution

Thanks! Strange! All I found was this:

Acronym Definition
TOE Target of Evaluation
TOE Theory of Everything
TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
TOE Table of Elements
TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
TOE Term of Enlistment
TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
TOE Total Ownership Experience
TOE Time of Event
TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
TOE Threaded One End
TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
TOE Target Operating Environment
TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
TOE Time Operating Efficiency
TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
TOE Technical Operations Expert
TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
TOE Theory of Evolution
TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)

TOE

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks! Strange! All I found was this:

Acronym Definition
TOE Target of Evaluation
TOE Theory of Everything
TOE TCP/IP Offload Engine
TOE Table of Elements
TOE Tales of Eternia (game)
TOE Term of Enlistment
TOE Transesophageal Echocardiogram
TOE Tonne of Oil Equivalent
TOE Telephone Outage Emergency (Emergency Alert System Code)
TOE Total Ownership Experience
TOE Time of Event
TOE Table of Organization & Equipment
TOE Total Operating Expense(s)
TOE Task, Object, Event (computer programming)
TOE Threaded One End
TOE Test of Effectiveness (Sarbanes-Oxley compliance)
TOE Target Operating Environment
TOE Timing-Offset Estimation
TOE Trial of Entrance (gaming clan recruitment)
TOE Troops, Organization & Equipment
TOE Time Operating Efficiency
TOE Tri Ocean Engineering
TOE Training on Errors (machine learning)
TOE Technical Operations Expert
TOE Transfer of Equity (finance)
TOE Theory of Evolution
TOE Through Other Eyes (UK)

TOE

It's the second from the bottom! How could you miss that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I did compare the Platypus to an animal that would indeed appear unusual and which evolutionists would find unusual due to its obviously unusual appearance. But I am not saying that they have difficulties fitting it in. Am I?
I am saying that no matter how unusual the animal might be-they will always find a way to reconcile it with the evolutionary theory. The platypus seems like a good example. Why do you consider it a bad example?

There you go again with the ambiguous statements.............

What do you mean, exactly, by the bolded part?
That evolution scientists are dishonestly and incorrectly force-fitting everything in the evolution paradigm, even when it doesn't fit? That's what you seem to be implying.

Please confirm if that is the case or not.