What Evolution fails to mention.

[Gene2memE]

Skin, heads, tails, lungs, brains, spines.......what system are you using? The "hard shell" classification system?

Cladistic taxonomy. You know, the one with the nested hierarchies based on evolutionary history.

Reptilia is a class in this taxonomy. It includes the sub-classes of Testudines (turtles and tortoises); Squamata (lizards and snakes); Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators); Aves (birds); and the poor old Tuatara, all by itself.

These are all descended from reptiliomorphs, which are in turn descended from tetrapods, and so on and so forth, back in time.

What's your issue with this taxonomic classification?

 

[SkyWriting]

Cladistic taxonomy. You know, the one with the nested hierarchies based on evolutionary history.

Reptilia is a class in this taxonomy. It includes the sub-classes of Testudines (turtles and tortoises); Squamata (lizards and snakes); Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators); Aves (birds); and the poor old Tuatara, all by itself.

These are all descended from reptiliomorphs, which are in turn descended from tetrapods, and so on and so forth, back in time.

What's your issue with this taxonomic classification?

That it's all imagined fiction? The same with all historical sciences. I admit, I haven't studied it since 9th grade, but like other history classes, nobody has asked me a related question in 40 some years since then.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That it's all imagined fiction?

-_- animals having many of the same physical traits, as well as similar genetics, are demonstrable. What level of taxonomy is shared (genus, order, etc.) depends on the degree of similarity. For example, all animals in the subphylum Vertebrata have vertebral columns and spinal chords. Would you deny that many organisms have these traits and that it is useful to distinguish them by such traits?

The same with all historical sciences. I admit, I haven't studied it since 9th grade, but like other history classes, nobody has asked me a related question in 40 some years since then.

If you know so little about taxonomy, why assert that it must all be "fiction"? I try to avoid debating material I know little to nothing about because I know I won't be able to make informed arguments. If I want to debate about a topic, I must be willing to learn about that topic and make an effort to do so BEFORE I enter any debates.

-_- not to say I've never made the poor choice of debating topics I am not well informed in; I've made an idiot out of myself many a time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The past we know about, God told us about..

So you believe.

your imaginary darkly inspired fantasy godless past does not even measure up to last thursdayism.

Ow, indeed, it most certainly doesn't.
See, I actually value reason and evidence and I stay clear of faith-based evidenceless beliefs.

It is fables mixed with denial sprinkled with zealous religion and topped with ignorance.

Says the guy whose beliefs are based on "i believe this ancient book says so, that settles it".

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you build a house of cards on a same state past, you just may be questioned about if you actually know what nature it really was or not

Indeed! I mean, who's to say what Last Thursday was like?

At that point they will find out you don't. Ha.

When I read that "Ha", I had a mental picture of a pre-school bully who's trolling the smart kid in class (who will own the factory years later where the bully will have a low pay dead end job).

 

[Brightmoon]

That it's all imagined fiction? The same with all historical sciences. I admit, I haven't studied it since 9th grade, but like other history classes, nobody has asked me a related question in 40 some years since then.

no offense but that ignorance of the subject of taxonomy is kinda obvious. What puzzles me is why, despite being woefully ignorant of the subject , you keep making claims about it? I don’t understand Japanese so I can’t answer questions about the language and if I attempted to do so , I’d look like a fool

 

[SkyWriting]

no offense but that ignorance of the subject of taxonomy is kinda obvious. What puzzles me is why, despite being woefully ignorant of the subject , you keep making claims about it? I don’t understand Japanese so I can’t answer questions about the language and if I attempted to do so , I’d look like a fool

Which claims? Can we stick to specifics?

Me:

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re The one who claims not to believe in something you have no understanding of The Big Bang and evolution . You’ve got some of the misleading pseudoscience nonsense that creationists claim is evolution . But when people who actually study evolution tell you that , you decide , based on your ignorance, not to listen to them. That’s a fools game

 

[Brightmoon]

When I first bumped into the creationist ( lying)version of evolution, the first thing I did was look for evidence to support their claims . After all scientists do change details about science when they get better data . There was no blanket dismissal of creationist ideas until after I caught on to the lying and Orwellian newspeak that they indulge in. But I also have a biology background.

For the Big Bang I’m admittedly taking the word of my physics and astronomy colleagues ( and the fact that they can actually see the universe less than a few million years after it formed) But I do agree based on a basic understand of geology that the earth is very old .

 

[sfs]

It may be true that nothing is random (although quantum events are thought to be random), but the 'random' used in the theory of evolution is, strictly, pseudo-random, meaning unpredictable. This can be due to the complexity of the situation (e.g. with billions of molecules & atoms bumping into each other, the path of any one is unpredictable - a Drunkard's Walk), or due to chaotic behaviour (sensitive dependency on initial conditions), e.g. the Butterfly Effect.

So the mutations involved in evolution occur at random for-all-intents-and-purposes. Natural selection isn't random as far as populations are concerned, although it may be stochastic (probabilistic) at the level of the individual.

Yes, in most of science "random" means unpredictable, or only predictable as a distribution of possible outcomes. "Random mutations" means something a little different in evolutionary biology, though. It means that mutations occur without regard to their effect on the organism's fitness. In other words, organisms don't have a mechanism for picking mutations that will be beneficial.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All past events are based on blind Faith in something.

You keep asserting this, even after countless people have demonstrated to you that it is nonsense.

Some kind of vehicle drove here. It's an event of the past. Does it require "faith"?
No, it does not.

And they are always fictional stories we create that satisfy our notions of how things work. They might be good stories, but they are created in our imagination.

Yes indeed. Religions are a fine example.

 

[SkyWriting]

You keep asserting this, even after countless people have demonstrated to you that it is nonsense.
Some kind of vehicle drove here. It's an event of the past. Does it require "faith"?
No, it does not.

I understand that countless people are wrong. That's why I add my view.
If in the mood, I will add my sources.

Can you restore the scene to it's former state,
then add the same people to the same vehicle,
restored to the same state, then accurately
film the event of it's passing so as to duplicate
the original event.....all with just this picture
and the data you can get from it?

Can you do any part of that without your imagination?
Any part of that using your imagination is
blind faith becasue you cannot see what has happened in the past.

"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

Download Forensic Inference Emails Part 1 (PDF)

Download Forensic Inference Emails Part 2 (PDF)



It gets even worse. You can WITNESS the truck driving over the sand
and still not accurately observe it!

Suppose there is a lady in a bikini riding on the hood of the truck.
Odds are good that you will not notice any machine guns, the color
size number of tires or pretty much anything else if she waves at you.
You might not even remember the truck.

So you can't even recreate the truck after having seen it.
You might touch and taste the truck and still not recreate the scene.

It gets even worse.
The entire event might be a vividly remembered dream.
The human brain does not process and store vividly imagined events
any differently than actual events. Brains scans show the same amount
of activity and areas of the brain used with imagined events as with live events.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand that countless people are wrong. That's why I add my view.
If in the mood, I will add my sources.

Can you restore the scene to it's former state, then add the same people to the same vehicle, restored to the same state, then accurately film the event of it's passing so as to duplicate the original event.....all with just this picture and the data you can get from it?

Can you do any part of that without your imagination? Any part of that using your imagination is blind faith becasue you cannot see what has happened in the past.

"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "
Heartland Forensic Pathology: Forensic Science and the Scientific Method

Stop trying to muddy the waters and just answer the question.

The statement about the event of the past is: "Some kind of vehicle drove here".
And all you have to go on, are the tire tracks in the snow.

Is the bolded sentence a statement of "blind faith"? Yes or no?
Does it concern a "past event"? Yes or no?

 

[SkyWriting]

Stop trying to muddy the waters and just answer the question.

The statement about the event of the past is: "Some kind of vehicle drove here".
And all you have to go on, are the tire tracks in the snow.

Is the bolded sentence a statement of "blind faith"? Yes or no?
Does it concern a "past event"? Yes or no?

I can recreate the same scene with Paint Shop Pro version 9.
I've been using it for years.
In the army, they can create fake vehicle tracks to deceive the enemy.

One of the secrets to great magic tricks is to go to unimagined
lengths to fool the viewer.

 

[Ophiolite]

"Past events cannot be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and cannot be tested experimentally. "

Nonsense.

The products of past events can be observed, in detail. Some examples: lava flows "showing" us a volcanic eruption; cryptic layering in intrusions revealing slow cooling following a binary eutectic; rounded quartz grains in a sandstone telling of prolonged grain erosion; a full list would require many books to detail.

Past events can be predicted. When examining a cyclothem we can predict which rock type will follow which and what its character will be.

We can duplicate cryptic layering in the lab; we can quantify grain rounding in the lab; we model meander migration in computers. The past can be tested experimentally.

Claims to the contrary are ignorant.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can recreate the same scene with Paint Shop Pro version 9.
I've been using it for years.
In the army, they can create fake vehicle tracks to deceive the enemy.

Still no answers, I see.

There are 2 yes/no questions. It's pretty simple.

Also, I said that the tire tracks are all you have to go on. I need to use a picture on this forum because it is the only way I can communicate visuals on this channel.

Imagine yourself standing in that place, looking at the tire tracks.

Is it a "statement of faith", to conclude that a vehicle drove there and made those tracks?
Yes or no.

Also note that I'm not asking about absolute certainty either.

There is just one really simple question: upon observing the tire tracks, is it then a "statement of faith" to conclude that a vehicle drove there, making those tracks?


It's hilarious to see you dance around this, trying extremely hard to not having to admit that you made a nonsense statement that is so easily debunked...................

 

[DogmaHunter]

The products of past events can be observed, in detail. Some examples: lava flows "showing" us a volcanic eruption

Yes, but can you PROVE that those things you see were actually produced by volcano's and NOT by extra-dimensional dragons farting?!?!?!

NO? THEN YOU HAVE FAITH!!!!


That seems to be his line of thinking.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nonsense.

The products of past events can be observed, in detail. Some examples: lava flows "showing" us a volcanic eruption; cryptic layering in intrusions revealing slow cooling following a binary eutectic; rounded quartz grains in a sandstone telling of prolonged grain erosion; a full list would require many books to detail.

Past events can be predicted. When examining a cyclothem we can predict which rock type will follow which and what its character will be.

We can duplicate cryptic layering in the lab; we can quantify grain rounding in the lab; we model meander migration in computers. The past can be tested experimentally.

Claims to the contrary are ignorant.

You are unable to observe a past event. You are blind to it.
You have faith in your processes that they consistently
produce the same outcomes. You use your imagination
to create fictional model events and alter your imagined
event sequences to fit the data you've collected.

If your model or sequence is in any way alterable, then it
is a fluid fiction in your imagination.

All you are claiming is that you are an expert in bending
your fictional model or story to fit any data you find.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are unable to observe a past event. You are blind to it.
You have faith in your processes that they consistently
produce the same outcomes.

lol

So when you jump out the window of a skyscraper, do you then require "faith" to believe that you'll plummet to your death due to gravity?

 

[SkyWriting]

Still no answers, I see.

There are 2 yes/no questions. It's pretty simple.

Also, I said that the tire tracks are all you have to go on. I need to use a picture on this forum because it is the only way I can communicate visuals on this channel.

Imagine yourself standing in that place, looking at the tire tracks.

Is it a "statement of faith", to conclude that a vehicle drove there and made those tracks?
Yes or no.

Also note that I'm not asking about absolute certainty either.

There is just one really simple question: upon observing the tire tracks, is it then a "statement of faith" to conclude that a vehicle drove there, making those tracks?


It's hilarious to see you dance around this, trying extremely hard to not having to admit that you made a nonsense statement that is so easily debunked...................

If your model or sequence is in any way alterable,
then it is a fluid fiction in your imagination.

Yes. The army does create fake tracks and this looks like an army truck.