Originally posted by KellyJayYou should really stop and review your own position.
I don't care what you are concerned about, you have spent more
time insulting me than making points that actually mattered on
topic too, when we had exchanges.If I was such a waist of time and
all I said didn't amount to a single defensible point you attacking me
was just because of something twisted within you. Worse case here
I didn't defend my posit ...[text shortened]... ype of people we are, you have
not done well by yourself here as far as I'm concern.
Kelly
You are on a very sticky wicket arguing about something of which you know nothing.
It's not surprising that people take the piss when faced with your ignorance.
Originally posted by KellyJayOk.
Yes mutation happens all the time, yet when they happen within
cats we are still seeing cats, when they happen within humans we
are still seeing humans at the end of the day. It is an amazing
process and I do not deny mutations or even evolutionary change
if how you define evolution is simply change within kinds or species
either. What we can see, what ...[text shortened]...
blade of grass over time through generations, that is a belief and
a matter of faith.
Kelly
One step at a time.
Yes we still see cats - but what kind of cats? Look at the big cats - lions can mate with tigers (tions or ligers, depending on the species of the male). The are considered different species from different continents but must have had common ancestry.
Originally posted by sugiezdI know that if you believe something you have never seen occur it
You should really stop and review your own position.
You are on a very sticky wicket arguing about something of which you know nothing.
It's not surprising that people take the piss when faced with your ignorance.
is a matter of faith, it isn't a matter of facts. Facts are simply data
points that can mean one thing or another, you can insult me as long
as you like, but the bottom line is that you believe a process has
been occuring longer than any person has been alive, it hasn't been
witnessed to that degree yet you believe. You may dance and sing
about how wise you are and how stupid the rest of the world is, but
you still believe something you and all your fellow believers have not
seen.
Kelly
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI'm not so sure that he's well educated though he's clearly not thick.
It would be easy to dismiss Kelly as a dumbass redneck (after all there's no shortage of them on this bored) but, as both his reply and style of argument suggest, he is educated. So why does an educated man choose to deny scientific orthodoxy?
Maybe from a bible-belt background?
Originally posted by KellyJayHappening now - Arion ater ater > Arion ater rufus.
I know that if you believe something you have never seen occur it
is a matter of faith, it isn't a matter of facts. Facts are simply data
points that can mean one thing or another, you can insult me as long
as you like, but the bottom line is that you believe a process has
been occuring longer than any person has been alive, it hasn't been
witnessed to ...[text shortened]... is, but
you still believe something you and all your fellow believers have not
seen.
Kelly
Common slug evolving into a red slug - check it out.
I won't labour the point with refs to the peppered moth but evolution is an on going process,
Originally posted by sugiezdI could agree with that, quite possible they share a common ancestor,
Ok.
One step at a time.
Yes we still see cats - but what kind of cats? Look at the big cats - lions can mate with tigers (tions or ligers, depending on the species of the male). The are considered different species from different continents but must have had common ancestry.
as when I think about dogs, wolves, and so on.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayRight !!!!
I could agree with that, quite possible they share a common ancestor,
as when I think about dogs, wolves, and so on.
Kelly
So how do YOU explain the divergence?
You can see a similar pattern in many groups - whales, birds, snakes, etc.
There must have been a common ancestor within each group. In most cases, the fossil record shows these ancestors.
I have to leave now but please, think about this carefully.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's becoming a different species of slug.
Cool a slug changing into a slug.
Kelly
1. A population of animals is split for some reason.
2. Conditions change.
3. The 2 poulations change via natural selection to adapt to the conditions and become 2 races.
4. The 2 populations become more and more different and eventually become 2 species rather than 2 races.
Remember the lions and tigers?
Originally posted by sugiezdNo I don't see them as all holding the same ancestor, the fossil
Right !!!!
So how do YOU explain the divergence?
You can see a similar pattern in many groups - whales, birds, snakes, etc.
There must have been a common ancestor within each group. In most cases, the fossil record shows these ancestors.
I have to leave now but please, think about this carefully.
record is just that fossils they don't come with little tags saying all
groups came from the same place. The belief the fossils show
a common ancestor is just that, a belief. We have creatures today
that look a like, we have creatures today that don't, and what we
see with fossils are creatures that look a like and some that do not.
What you think those fossils or data points means is a matter of
belief since you were not around to witness or record these massive
changes from one type of creature unto another type.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIs it faith that leads me to state you are using a computer or is it a valid logical deduction based on the fact that there is little other way that you could participate in these forums without one?..I mean after all, I've never actually *witnessed* you using a computer so how can I be so sure eh?
No I don't see them as all holding the same ancestor, the fossil
record is just that fossils they don't come with little tags saying all
groups came from the same place. The belief the fossils show
a common ancestor is just that, a belief. We have creatures today
that look a like, we have creatures today that don't, and what we
see with fossils are cr ...[text shortened]... witness or record these massive
changes from one type of creature unto another type.
Kelly
Is the assertion that if 100 elephants were mating with 100 elephants then there'd be 200 elephants a matter of faith because I've never seen 200 elephants mating?..hell, is it a matter of faith that they even mate at all when I've never even seen one elephant mate?
Originally posted by AgergThat is right, and if you were able to understand that I do not think
Is it [b]faith that leads me to state you are using a computer or is it a valid logical deduction based on the fact that there is little other way that you could participate in these forums without one?..I mean after all, I've never actually *witnessed* you using a computer so how can I be so sure eh?
Is the assertion that if 100 elephants were mating w ...[text shortened]... then there'd be 200 elephants a matter of faith because I've never seen 200 elephants mating?[/b]
faith is a bad thing my saying something is faith does not mean that
it isn't true; it only means that is faith. If I point out to you, you have
beliefs that cannot be shown wrong, that is not the same thing as
saying you are wrong, only that you have beliefs that cannot be shown
to be wrong. The main trouble here with I'll call the vastly superior
educated among us in this forum is that they think that a
disagreement means it is time for character assassination and insult,
not an honest discussion of views and ideas.
Kelly
Originally posted by sugiezdHow about a recommended read to start with? That way I won’t waste my time by picking up something that I later find out is crap. I can read and understand multi-syllable words and complex concepts; layperson with regard to science; try to keep the maths down to basic calculus/algebra.
Well, why not go away, learn a little of what DNA is about, including its mutation and the effects thereof and then come back.
I’m serious.
Scotty, aardvark—you guys probably have a good idea by now what my brain can take... Any suggestions?
Originally posted by vistesdRichard Dwarkin would be a reasonable place to start (The Blind Watchmaker). His style is confrontational but all the same he is able to communicate the science very effectively.
How about a recommended read to start with? That way I won’t waste my time by picking up something that I later find out is crap. I can read and understand multi-syllable words and complex concepts; layperson with regard to science; try to keep the maths down to basic calculus/algebra.
I’m serious.
Scotty, aardvark—you guys probably have a good idea by now what my brain can take... Any suggestions?