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.
Not that I accept your claim, but consider this: you are relying on a book that has species in it that you now claim have been removed. You've just debunked the very book you are trying to use as evidence!
I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish. But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.
According to TV, time travel just consumes too much energy to be of value.
Wait, all the grey parts were never found, and the tan parts were bone fragments they found, broken as indicated? And you place such confidence in this that you get a tattoo of it?
You have far greater Faith than I ever will
How can I show them wrong, when they cannot even define the terms they use? Oh and btw, I didn't insult anyone, nor imply that the insult meant their argument is wrong. You creationists have the most delicate skin, I swear to G-d.argumentum ad hominem
I guess the appropriate response would be to show them wrong and provide the ability to check the work done. (See below)
I believe that 99% of creationism is rubbish.I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish.
Very good!But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.
1) WRONG about Flores...
The University of Western Australia's Emeritus Professor Charles Oxnard and his colleagues, in a paper in PLoS ONE[bless and do not curse]have reconfirmed, on the post-cranial skeleton, their original finding on the skull that[bless and do not curse]Homo floresiensis[bless and do not curse]in fact bears the hallmarks of humans --[bless and do not curse]Homo sapiens[bless and do not curse]-- affected by hypothyroid cretinism.
HeritageDaily - The Latest Archaeology News & Articles - Homo floresiensis a new species of human?
1) WRONG about Flores...
The University of Western Australia's Emeritus Professor Charles Oxnard and his colleagues, in a paper in PLoS ONE[bless and do not curse]have reconfirmed, on the post-cranial skeleton, their original finding on the skull that[bless and do not curse]Homo floresiensis[bless and do not curse]in fact bears the hallmarks of humans --[bless and do not curse]Homo sapiens[bless and do not curse]-- affected by hypothyroid cretinism.
HeritageDaily - The Latest Archaeology News & Articles - Homo floresiensis a new species of human?
2) Yeah, the scientists are still sorting stuff out.
They are way way behind God who said 22 in 1362AD at least.
For instance,...
Most of the paleoanthropologists accept that these fossils do not belong to a distinct species, but that the creature called Homo rudolfensis is in fact indistinguishable from Homo habilis.
3) The point remains that scientists do not have 35 nor 10, but right around these 22 found in Genesis.
AND... most paleontologists agree with those who wrote the newest book on the subject,... 22 extinct species.
Your criticism is getting more lame as we go along.
Why not join me and take a positive view instead of this nonsense???
Funny how creationists come here and tell us about "well founded" Information Theory that shows evolution can't add information, but then cannot answer a simple practical question about information.
CSI came up again in a recent thread here on UD. I asked the participants there to assist me in better understanding CSI by providing a rigorous mathematical definition and showing how to calculate it for four scenarios:
Uncommon Descent | On The Calculation Of CSI
- A simple gene duplication, without subsequent modification, that increases production of a particular protein from less than X to greater than X. The specification of this scenario is Produces at least X amount of protein Y.
- Tom Schneiders ev evolves genomes using only simplified forms of known, observed evolutionary mechanisms, that meet the specification of A nucleotide that binds to exactly N sites within the genome. The length of the genome required to meet this specification can be quite long, depending on the value of N. (ev is particularly interesting because it is based directly on Schneiders PhD work with real biological organisms.)
- Tom Rays Tierra routinely results in digital organisms with a number of specifications. One I find interesting is Acts as a parasite on other digital organisms in the simulation. The length of the shortest parasite is at least 22 bytes, but takes thousands of generations to evolve.
- The various Steiner Problem solutions from a programming challenge a few years ago have genomes that can easily be hundreds of bits. The specification for these genomes is Computes a close approximation to the shortest connected path between a set of points.
argumentum ad hominem
I guess the appropriate response would be to show them wrong and provide the ability to check the work done. (See below)
It gets even better over at Uncommon Descent. Someone posted 4 very simple question:
No one at UD could answer these questions. They couldn't measure CSI for some very simple and very important questions.
Make it a point to learn something new every day . A mind is a terrible thing to waist.
What you believe has no impact on the outside world whatsoever. That first sentence is a flaw on an otherwise excellent post.I believe 99% of common decent is rubbish
Exactly.But if a species branched off to fill some niche, there is no reason the original ancestor can't remain in it's ecological niche and stay there and survive. Evolution isn't some outside force that causes an entire species to change in unison over some preset length of time. If only one part of a species population is pressured by it's environment, only that segment needs to branch off.
Well here's the stickler for me? Why are any apes even left if we evolved from apes? Was there a "pause" in the evolution process? A flaw? Were some apes just stubborn and ran from it, time-traveled from it? Please explain. Anyone. Thank you kindly.
That tattoo merely commemorates an interesting part of my studies that I thought looked cool.
which I chose to get for reasons you can't possibly comprehend
Why do you minimize your beliefs by attempting to belittle me?
This is a Gish's Gallop of unsupported claims. Why don't you read the article before you decide it supports your claim?
The criticism I have is based on 27 species of hominids. That's not lame. It's hard fact.
What you have is a hodgepodge of literal and allegorical assumptions all lumped in together in a very surreal misfortune of half-truths and complete fiction.
That is not an ad hominem. It is attacking the argument, no the arguer. Creaitonists claim that they can use information theory to show that evolution can not occur with references to information loss and gain. We are simply pointing out that creationists can do no such thing, as evidenced by their failure to measure information in very simple examples (see above).
First Information is only relevant to an intelligent agent. I assume youre a fairly intelligent person so I hope information has relevance to you. I do not know what your string of base pairs does so obviously how can you interpret a change in entropy? It is like someone who only knows the Hebrew alphabet; an English sentence is meaningless to them although it may contain information. I do sense that you know nothing about information theory so when someone speaks about a loss or gain in entropy you are clueless. It is not because you do not have an intelligent mind it is only because Information Theory is foreign to you (you do not speak its language). This may help you try and read it or Google entropy for dummies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
Make it a point to learn something new every day . A mind is a terrible thing to waist.
Maybe you should be the one to read "entropy for dummies since you cannot use your vast understanding of information theory to answer basic questions about information. Or maybe you should re-read it. Or maybe you should stop trying to apply things like Shannon information theory to things it does not apply to. Or maybe you should stop thinking so highly of I.D. b******t about evolution being unable to increase information.
There are OEC and GAP creationists. Not even the majority are YEC.Even their seven "days" makes no sense in that the 24 hour day was NOT initiated until "day" 4, when God made the sun authority over our Solar Clock.
Yes, the Creationists do argue about Evolution.
But they miss the point:
No where in Genesis does the story differ with evolution.....
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?