On the Origin of Species

[A Tripolation]

Something you should understand about that article - what's being challenged is the evolution from dinosaur to bird, not the theory of evolution as a whole. In fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is required to explain their findings and conclusion.

 

Even I knew that.

 

But that is a really interesting article. I'd never heard of that before.

[CTD]

Interesting choice of words. Are you here to discuss the theory of evolution by natural selection, or here to pick a fight over it?

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number.

 

And since you brought it up,

is there any chance you'll be producing a "theory" for me to examine?

There is not the least bit of audacity required to offer evidence that challenges current theory. In fact, that's the whole point of science.

 

Something you should understand about that article - what's being challenged is the evolution from dinosaur to bird, not the theory of evolution as a whole. In fact, the theory of evolution by natural selection is required to explain their findings and conclusion.

I disagree. Furthermore I'll defy you to agree with the statement that anyone attacking scientists for doing precisely that type of work is a coward.

[toastywombel]

I feel a creationist is about to argue how the invisible man in the sky who designed us is a better scientific theory than evolution.

[A Tripolation]

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number.

 

*raises hand*

 

Seriously, don't **** with her, she'll mess you up.

[JillSwift]

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number.

 

And since you brought it up,

is there any chance you'll be producing a "theory" for me to examine?

I'll take this to mean you intend to pick a fight.

 

I disagree. Furthermore I'll defy you to agree with the statement that anyone attacking scientists for doing precisely that type of work is a coward.

What are you disagreeing with?

Who is attacking those scientists, and who called the attackers cowards?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

*raises hand*

 

Seriously, don't **** with her, she'll mess you up.

Oh phfft. You're making me blush. ==

[D H]

Interesting choice of words. Are you here to discuss the theory of evolution by natural selection, or here to pick a fight over it?

Oh, no doubt about why this person is here. He/she is a creationist troll.

 

A fairly intelligent one, though. This might be fun.

[Moontanman]

Jill, the idea that birds did not evolve from tyrannosaurs is a totally straw man argument, both birds and tyrannosaurs evolved from a dinosaur much smaller and quite different from both birds and tyrannosaurs, this guy is just trolling for converts.

[JillSwift]

Jill, the idea that birds did not evolve from tyrannosaurs is a totally straw man argument, both birds and tyrannosaurs evolved from a dinosaur much smaller and quite different from both birds and tyrannosaurs, this guy is just trolling for converts.

Ok. I'm not 100% familiar with the findings in that case. (Last I looked was over a year ago.)

 

My point still stands, however, that interpreting their evidence and conclusion still requires the theory of evolution by natural selection.

 

Like the new av, BTW.

[Mr Skeptic]

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number. .

 

So basically, you don't want to let the facts get in the way of your worldview? I suppose there is no point in talking to you then. But, should you not choose to stick your head in the sand, perhaps you can tell my why this doesn't completely destroy any theory of creationism or intelligent design, in favor of evolution: why would an intelligent designer put viruses in our DNA? Why put inactivated virus rather than active ones, and why do they look exactly like evolution would predict as compared to the retroviruses in other primates?

 

PS: in Darwin's time, they didn't know about DNA, which is both the most important part of the mechanism and by far the best evidence, of evolution.

[toastywombel]

Amen Mr. Skeptic !

[CTD]

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number.

 

And since you brought it up' date='

is there any chance you'll be producing a "theory" for me to examine?

I'll take this to mean you intend to pick a fight.

That was your intention from the get-go, when you first tried to put those words in my mouth. You still remain their original source, as anyone can scroll up and see.

 

I intend to contend for what is true, and those who seek to find truth. If that makes us enemies, it comes as no surprise.

 

What are you disagreeing with?

Who is attacking those scientists, and who called the attackers cowards?

I disagree with all your assertions. It does take courage to put one's livelihood (and who knows what beyond) at risk for the sake of truth. I don't think one must accept evolutionism in order to reject the premise that birds evolved from theropods at all, and I never claimed or implied "evolution as a whole" was questioned by those individuals.

 

By the way, does "evolution as a whole" refer to something other than changes in allele frequencies? It will help avoid miscommunication if terms are used consistently.

 

Also, did you miss my post about Darwin's writing? You don't seem to have anything to say about it. If you want to fight so dearly, why not fight about the topic? Isn't that what you're really upset about? Or is it really that offensive that I praise a handful of evolutionists when they buck the system? What are the odds my praise will have any impact? Doesn't the evogoddess of luck work against me? I thought she only helped the faithful, usually when they need to overcome mathematical certainties.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So basically, you don't want to let the facts get in the way of your worldview? I suppose there is no point in talking to you then. But, should you not choose to stick your head in the sand, perhaps you can tell my why this doesn't completely destroy any theory of creationism or intelligent design, in favor of evolution: why would an intelligent designer put viruses in our DNA? Why put inactivated virus rather than active ones, and why do they look exactly like evolution would predict as compared to the retroviruses in other primates?

 

PS: in Darwin's time, they didn't know about DNA, which is both the most important part of the mechanism and by far the best evidence, of evolution.

C'mon. I've already got one person trying to put words in my mouth. Can't you try another sleazy tactic?

 

Perhaps you can explain the aversion I see to discussing the topic of the thread? I know I can.

[toastywombel]

CTD I find it funny, you are putting your livelihood at risk by arguing against evolution? Seriously? HAHAHA

[Moontanman]

CDT, what do you mean "an aversion to discussing the topic of this thread"? I read it, it was out of date but still good read and it still contains good information about the ideas that stand at the root of modern evolutionary theory. You seem to be intent on arguing if it is still right or something similar. cut to the chase, what do you want to do besides use straw man arguments to support creationism? If you want to support creationism start your own thread and go for it, rest assured that dog won't hunt unless you have a completely new dog. The old dog is dead and fossilized.

[Mr Skeptic]

C'mon. I've already got one person trying to put words in my mouth. Can't you try another sleazy tactic?

 

No, you are putting words in your mouth. If you will not change your mind regardless of the facts presented, "audacious" as you call it, and a "guarantee" that you won't change your mind, it can only mean that you will ignore any facts that contradict you. For example, the ones that I presented to you and you had no way to fit into your worldview so you ignored them.

[CTD]

CDT, what do you mean "an aversion to discussing the topic of this thread"?

Scroll up and see for yourself. I posted on-topic. I got an informal joke response, and I replied in kind. After that, the conversation got to be all about who can put the most words in CTD's mouth.

 

(By the way, do any of you claim success in those endeavours?)

I read it, it was out of date but still good read and it still contains good information about the ideas that stand at the root of modern evolutionary theory. You seem to be intent on arguing if it is still right or something similar. cut to the chase, what do you want to do besides use straw man arguments to support creationism?

How about this? How about I'm intent on arguing what I argue? If I have presented bogus evidence, or made some mistake, why has nobody mentioned it? Are you all too busy dreaming up ways to put words in my mouth to read what I wrote, and then either agree, disagree, or shut up?

 

If you want to support creationism start your own thread and go for it, rest assured that dog won't hunt unless you have a completely new dog. The old dog is dead and fossilized.

I have started my own thread, and it is not about creationism. How many threads do you expect me to participate in simultaneously?

 

How about I start a thread where you can all imagine silly things for me to say? That way I wouldn't have to participate. Shoot, why wait for me? Why don't one of you start such a thread yourself?

[JillSwift]

That was your intention from the get-go, when you first tried to put those words in my mouth. You still remain their original source, as anyone can scroll up and see.

 

I intend to contend for what is true, and those who seek to find truth. If that makes us enemies, it comes as no surprise.

You refused to answer a question, so I took your attitude as an answer. You may contradict my conclusion at any time.

 

Were you in the least bit interested in "the truth", you would stop all this angry rhetoric and start with proffering evidence.

 

 

I disagree with all your assertions. It does take courage to put one's livelihood (and who knows what beyond) at risk for the sake of truth. I don't think one must accept evolutionism in order to reject the premise that birds evolved from theropods at all, and I never claimed or implied "evolution as a whole" was questioned by those individuals.

 

By the way, does "evolution as a whole" refer to something other than changes in allele frequencies? It will help avoid miscommunication if terms are used consistently.

What does changes in allele "frequencies" have to do with evolution as a theory?

 

Also, did you miss my post about Darwin's writing? You don't seem to have anything to say about it. If you want to fight so dearly, why not fight about the topic? Isn't that what you're really upset about? Or is it really that offensive that I praise a handful of evolutionists when they buck the system? What are the odds my praise will have any impact? Doesn't the evogoddess of luck work against me? I thought she only helped the faithful, usually when they need to overcome mathematical certainties.

Strange. I explained that new evidence changes theories, and offering new evidence is what those researchers are doing. It's not offensive when folks do science. This was in no way a condemnation of the work of the researchers nor the researchers themselves, rather praise.

 

The reason I've not bothered to diwscuss your comments on The Origin of Species is that all you've provided are baseless assertions. You are avoiding losing an argument by not presenting an argument.

[CTD]

No, you are putting words in your mouth.

Calling yourself me? Phail!

 

If you will not change your mind regardless of the facts presented, "audacious" as you call it, and a "guarantee" that you won't change your mind, it can only mean that you will ignore any facts that contradict you. For example, the ones that I presented to you and you had no way to fit into your worldview so you ignored them.

I never said I would not change my mind regardless of the facts presented. Neither did I equate such an attitude with the term 'audacious.' That's all you.

 

You guys really should start a new thread for the project. Please keep it entertaining.

[toastywombel]

Now you are just looking to make yourself a victim, when you were initially the aggressor. Your narcissism and ignorance show through your inability to accept facts. Your arguments at the beginning of the post were incoherent and hard to follow, when more than one person pointed this out you insisted we were wrong.

 

The vast majority of the scientific community believes the theory of evolution is a sound one, even more so since we started mapping the gnome of species. So either you are wrong, or the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong.

 

How many experiments have you done?

How many experiments has the scientific community done?

 

The ego and narcissism amaze me.

Edited October 19, 2009 by toastywombel

[CTD]

You refused to answer a question, so I took your attitude as an answer. You may contradict my conclusion at any time.

Shall I tally up the count of my own unanswered questions? I think I know who's better positioned to point fingers.

 

Were you in the least bit interested in "the truth", you would stop all this angry rhetoric and start with proffering evidence.

You're the one who decided to fight. Chickening out?

 

I disagree with all your assertions. It does take courage to put one's livelihood (and who knows what beyond) at risk for the sake of truth. I don't think one must accept evolutionism in order to reject the premise that birds evolved from theropods at all, and I never claimed or implied "evolution as a whole" was questioned by those individuals.

 

By the way, does "evolution as a whole" refer to something other than changes in allele frequencies? It will help avoid miscommunication if terms are used consistently.

What does changes in allele "frequencies" have to do with evolution as a theory?

You introduced "evolution as a whole". I asked you what you meant by it. Until you answer my question, I doubt I'll be equipped to answer yours in a way you'd understand.

 

(Nice job context-stripping, BTW. I like 'em subtle.)

 

Strange. I explained that new evidence changes theories, and offering new evidence is what those researchers are doing. It's not offensive when folks do science. This was in no way a condemnation of the work of the researchers nor the researchers themselves, rather praise.

What's strange is that you attempt to manufacture disagreement in the wrong places. I don't think you'll have much luck.

 

The reason I've not bothered to diwscuss your comments on The Origin of Species is that all you've provided are baseless assertions. You are avoiding losing an argument by not presenting an argument.

I don't know what you assume I intend to argue. I did a practical good job providing links & evidence, and I said what I know about the topic (not all, by far, but a reasonable amount).

 

Again, you're in no position to point fingers about baseless assertions. History, by it's nature is related in story form, so that in my post which resembles assertion could stand verification if it should come to be disputed. Your assertions do not involve history - they're just things you want people to believe.

 

As for argument, why use it when it isn't required? I linked to evidence which is convincing a lot of folks birds didn't evolve from theropods. You put 2 and 2 together and concluded this was a threat to the overall belief system. I have no need to assume anyone is less capable than yourself of understanding implications; thus I can rely more on fact than interpretation. That's handy when one is lazy. ...Or honest.

[toastywombel]

Wow, CTD I have made several posts pertaining to your topic yet you have not responded to any of them.

[JillSwift]

Chickening out?

Sure, if thinking that makes you feel happier.

 

There are potentially fruitful arguments, then there's wasting time with someone disinterested in an exchange of ideas.

 

This is the latter.

 

Bye now.

[toastywombel]

Sure, if thinking that makes you feel happier.

 

There are potentially fruitful arguments, then there's wasting time with someone disinterested in an exchange of ideas.

 

This is the latter.

 

Bye now.

 

Beautifully put

[iNow]

Kirk Cameron is giving out copies with a 50 page introduction about how Darwin was a racist, so evolution is wrong.

 

You might say that he is a growing pain.

 

This made me laugh. Gotta love the Onion:

 

 

[One of the Few]

I will read it, i assure you this, yet i am hard set on finishing the books i already own.