Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, June 02, 2011

The "Children First" Rule of Evolution

-
What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the "children" have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

Tiktaalik.

That's right- Tiktaalik is the poster child for the new evolutionary postulate "children species can show up before their parent species".

And that is part of the evolutionary solution of "just say anything and if you get questioned just start throwing around false accusations until you have completely messed up the discussion", ie Rule 1 in the pocket version of the evotard "How to Debate" manual.

82 Comments:

  • At 1:18 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "That's right- Tiktaalik is the poster child for the new evolutionary postulate "children species can show up before their parent species". "

    Goodness you are dense. It simply confirms what we already know, that 'parent' and 'child' species can be around at the same time. In fact - 'child species' can even go extinct before the parent.

    Try to understand, if you can, that fossils are individuals representative of a species that is around for a period of time, than neither begins with or ends with the date that is the age of the fossilized remains, unless you find the very first or very last one of its type.

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richtard,

    In this case there isn't any evidence that the alleged parent is older than the alleged childre.

    The evidence has the children older than the parents.

    Try to keep up.

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The evidence has the children older than the parents."

    The evidence being two fossils, that each represent a species that exists in a large continuum of time?

    Do you do much critical thinking? If you see a horse and cart, do you conclude cars can't yet exist?

    IDIOT.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The evidence has the children older than the parents."

    RichTard:
    The evidence being two fossils, that each represent a species that exists in a large continuum of time?

    The evidence being the children have been found in rocks over 390 million years old and Tiktaalik being found in rocks 375 million years old and no evidence for a fish to tetrapod transition earlier than that.

    Then add to that there isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates such a transition is even possible.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Then add to that there isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates such a transition is even possible."

    Goalposts moved. There's a good creationist!

    No doubt you also doubt the veracity of dating methods, too - because you've got all the 'facts' you need in a book.

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Then add to that there isn't any genetic evidence that demonstrates such a transition is even possible."

    RichTard:
    Goalposts moved.

    Nope, just another one you have to clear. And another one you will just avoid because you are an evotard coward.

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So still no evidence for the parent species before the children species. And this bothers evotards. Cool...

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I'm not bothered, I just wanted to help you understand evolution. It is beyond you apparently - and you're upset a prediction was proved correct by finding evidence in the right place.

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    No doubt you also doubt the veracity of dating methods, too - because you've got all the 'facts' you need in a book.

    Of course I doubt the veracity of dating methods- for purely scientific reasons. But I have already been over that in another thread.

     
  • At 5:49 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Of course I doubt the veracity of dating methods- for purely scientific reasons."

    That is consistent with Baraminology.

     
  • At 8:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    That is consistent with Baraminology.

    The biological data is consistent with baraminology.

     
  • At 8:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    I'm not bothered, I just wanted to help you understand evolution.

    I understand it better than you do. You haven't said anything I didn't already know.

    RichTard:
    and you're upset a prediction was proved correct by finding evidence in the right place.

    Actually the "prediction" was based on faulty data so it could hardly have been proven correct.

     
  • At 9:35 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "so it could hardly have been proven correct."

    And yet it was, when the found what they were looking for, a fact you can't address for some reason.

    So either
    1) They didn't find Tiktaalik
    2) Schubin is astronomically lucky
    3) Joe doesn't understand what's going on.

    (3)

     
  • At 7:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Actually the "prediction" was based on faulty data so it could hardly have been proven correct.

    RichTard:
    And yet it was,

    No, it wasn't. According to Shubin he was looking in the wrong place and wrong strata.

    I will go with the scientist over the evotard loser.

     
  • At 8:38 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    What data was faulty? NONE. The creatures where around at the times described. You seem to have issues with the logic, but that's because you can't understand that species exist and co-exist across a continuum of time. To think you have scientific consensus is laughable. I doubt any biologist also holds your idiotic views.

    We laughed at Luskin, we laugh at you.

     
  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    What data was faulty?

    I told you already- SEVERAL TIMES.

    The data he had placed the transition of fish to land-animal between 385-365 million years ago. The new data placed the transition much earlier.

    RichTard:
    The creatures where around at the times described.

    Yet the creature(s) he was looking for existed much earlier than he thought.

    Richtard:
    but that's because you can't understand that species exist and co-exist across a continuum of time.

    Fuck you- I have never said, thought nor implied such a thing.

    RichTad:
    To think you have scientific consensus is laughable.

    I am just going by what the scientist said. And I will listen to him not you.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    MORE questions the cowardly evotards are avoiding:

    Does a "parent" species have to exist BEFORE the "child" speies?

    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

     
  • At 10:37 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

    An incomplete fossil record?

    An incomplete understanding of the fossil record?

    An incomplete understanding of evolution?

    Take your pick.

     
  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the children have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

    OM:
    An incomplete fossil record?

    Possibly.

    An incomplete understanding of the fossil record?

    Doubtful but possible

    An incomplete understanding of evolution?

    Is there something in the theory that says daughter species can arrive BEFORE the parent species? If not then no, I don't have such an understanding.

    Take your pick.

    I prefer this one:

    There isn't any evidece for the alleged transition before the alleged transition took place.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    There isn't any evidece for the alleged transition before the alleged transition took place.


    Why do you say "alleged"?

    I thought ID was not anti-evolution?

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Doubtful but possible

    So you are claiming that you have a complete understanding of the fossil record?

    Doubtful.

     
  • At 10:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    Why do you say "alleged"?

    Because there STILL isn't any genetic data which links to the transformations required.

    OM:
    I thought ID was not anti-evolution?

    I have proven that it isn't. I have also proven that evolution doesn't equal universal common ancestry.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    So you are claiming that you have a complete understanding of the fossil record?

    I would say it is a safe bet that I understand it better than you. But that is bseides the point.

     
  • At 2:33 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Because there STILL isn't any genetic data which links to the transformations required.

    I would like to check that for myself.

    Can you identify a single such "transformation"?

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    I have also proven that evolution doesn't equal universal common ancestry.

    How can evolution produce anything other then a nested hierarchy, in the main?

    Latest intel says it's more like a tangled bush at the roots but universal common ancestry is doubted by no serious scientist.

    Even Behe, who in The Edge of Evolution says:

    The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.
    "That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, [11] there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.",


    What is your evidence against common descent?

    Tiktaalik was only discovered at all because common descent was assumed. Otherwise they would not know where to look - who can predict where "the designer" would implement the next stage in the incremental design sequence from sea to land.

     
  • At 5:50 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Because there STILL isn't any genetic data which links to the transformations required.

    OM:
    I would like to check that for myself.

    OK- good luck- I will still be posting here when you have finally figured it out.

     
  • At 5:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I have also proven that evolution doesn't equal universal common ancestry.

    OM:
    How can evolution produce anything other then a nested hierarchy, in the main?

    Non-sequitur but we wouldn't expect evolution to produce a nested hierarchy- transitional forms and all.

    OM:
    Latest intel says it's more like a tangled bush at the roots but universal common ancestry is doubted by no serious scientist.

    Unfortunately not one of thsoe scientist has any data which suppoirts their claim.

    They don't even know what makes an organism wha it is and there isn't any data that says an organism is the sum of its genome.

    OM:
    What is your evidence against common descent?

    Shared mistakes is hardly evidnce for it- so you need to start with positive evidence.

    OM:
    Tiktaalik was only discovered at all because common descent was assumed.

    It would have been discovered regardless- all it would tke is someone digging around in tha area.

    OM:
    Otherwise they would not know where to look -

    They looked there due to faulty data.

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    OK- good luck- I will still be posting here when you have finally figured it out.

    Then name a transition.

     
  • At 9:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OK- good luck- I will still be posting here when you have finally figured it out.

    OM:
    Then name a transition.

    Name the genes that make a fish a fish.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Name the genes that make a fish a fish.

    What baramin would that be?

     
  • At 9:45 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Non-sequitur, but thanks for continuing to prove that you are a coward.

     
  • At 10:00 AM, Blogger OM said…

    I think it's very relevant Joe.

    After all, there are many species of "fish" out there, each will have different genes to any other type.

    Whereas if we apply your question to the specific baramin then we don't need to worry about all the different species of fish, just the baramin you identify for me.

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    NON_SEQUITUR does NOT mean IRRELEVANT you moron.

    But anyway pick any species you want and tell me the genes that make it a fish.

     
  • At 10:13 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    But anyway pick any species you want and tell me the genes that make it a fish.

    But I know that any data I might produce would also be compatible with baraminology and as such what will it prove?

    I mean, is this "fish" you speak of in a Monobaramin? A Apobaramin? A Polybaramin?

    It would be much more productive for you to simple name the baramin you believe that "fish" belong to and we can take it from there.

     
  • At 10:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    OM:
    But I know that any data I might produce would also be compatible with baraminology and as such what will it prove?

    That doesn't have nything to do with my request.

    But thank you for continuing to prove that you are a coward.

    bye-bye

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: What do you have when you only have evidence for the "parents" well after the "children" have been scurrying about and no evidence BEFORE the children showed up?

    That's not correct. The parents are fish, the grandchildren are tetrapods. Fish existed long before tetrapods. But there are still fish today.

    Your concern seems to be that the earliest known fossil of a fishopod came after the earliest evidence of tetrapods. However, when dealing with a transition that happened hundreds of millions of years ago, and relying upon fragmentary fossil evidence, we can't always reconstruct the exact sequence.

    It's like having just a few photographs. You might have the wedding picture of the grandparents, Mr. & Mrs. Fish, a picture of the childless Uncle Tiktaalik (who lived a very long time) with the offspring of his sister (the little tetrapods).

    The fact is that the existence of a fishopod was predicted from the Theory of Common Descent. They could even exist today, but they don't. They may have existed a million years ago, but left no fossils, but this is unlikely. Nevertheless, the Theory of Common Descent says they existed sometime between the origin of tetrapods and today. As no one had ever found such a species, they went extinct sometime after tetrapods came into existence. But they still may have been around for millions of years. Again, the evidence is fragmentary. So a good place to look for a close relative would be near the point of divergence.

    Whatever the case, scientists, like do things. Like stake years of their lives looking for evidence. So unlike ID.

     
  • At 10:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Fish existed long before tetrapods.

    Except you don't know that.

    Zacho:
    Your concern seems to be that the earliest known fossil of a fishopod came after the earliest evidence of tetrapods.

    My concern is what Shubin said, nothing else.

    Zacho:
    The fact is that the existence of a fishopod was predicted from the Theory of Common Descent.

    Liar- that "theory" didn't predict fish.

    But anyway you didn't read the book so go pound sand.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger OM said…

    Joe,
    Liar- that "theory" didn't predict fish.

    A is observed. C is observed. Therefore B is predicted by the Theory of Common Descent.

    The specific form of A,B and C is not predicted. That would be absurd. Given A and B the form of C can be predicted, whatever form A and B actually take.

    But I note that Zacho actually said this:
    The fact is that the existence of a fishopod was predicted from the Theory of Common Descent.

    I see nothing about a prediction regarding "fish" which is what you claimed. Here fishopod = B.

     
  • At 11:47 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: My concern is what Shubin said, nothing else.

    Well, he said he was looking for something that had intermediate characteristics that would constitute a close relative per the Theory of Common Descent. That's what he said, and that's what he found.

    Contrariwise, IDers never find or do anything.

    Zachriel: The fact is that the existence of a fishopod was predicted from the Theory of Common Descent.

    Joe G: that "theory" didn't predict fish.

    Please read more carefully. We didn't say fish, but fishopod, an organism with intermediate characteristics, especially with regard to wrist, neck and ribs.

    Zachriel: Fish existed long before tetrapods.

    Joe G: Except you don't know that.

    If you are that confused, then fishopods are a minor issue. In any case, Ostracoderms date from about 500 million years ago.

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Except you don't know that."

    Knowing is supremely difficult, Joe. We are however immensely confident that "Fish existed long before tetrapods."

    Your inability to understand Schubin is not Schubin's fault - he shouldn't have to explain that he's no finding 'the very first of it's kind' for scientific illiterates such as yourself.

     
  • At 3:07 PM, Blogger Eocene said…

    Zachriel:

    "Whatever the case, scientists, like do things. Like stake years of their lives looking for evidence. So unlike ID."
    ===

    You mean like Peter and Mary grant who wasted 35 years of their life only to admit that what they observed was a mere oscillation of back and forth survival adaptations which have ZERO to do with evolution ???

    Oh wait a minute. They didn't waste their lives for nothing. Something can be learned from their research. Like what and how not to waste your life on deadend research. We owe the Grant family a lot for which direction we should take in any future research projects.

    Yeah, thanks guys! *smile*

     
  • At 3:11 PM, Blogger Eocene said…

    JoeG:

    "But anyway you didn't read the book so go pound sand."
    ===

    The individual you are attempting to have a meaningful discussion with here, promotes itself as all-knowing. So why should It read the book when It already knows the truth anyway ??? LOL

    *eyes rolling*

     
  • At 7:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "But anyway you didn't read the book so go pound sand."

    But anyway, you didn't understand the book, so go pound sand.

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Well, he said he was looking for something that had intermediate characteristics that would constitute a close relative per the Theory of Common Descent. That's what he said, and that's what he found.

    That isn't what he said - you didn't read the book.

     
  • At 11:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    We are however immensely confident that "Fish existed long before tetrapods."

    I am immensely confident that you are a lying piece of shit.

    RichTard:
    Your inability to understand Schubin is not Schubin's fault - he shouldn't have to explain that he's no finding 'the very first of it's kind'

    It's your inability, not mine and I ee you are still figting a strawman.

    RichTard:
    But anyway, you didn't understand the book,

    Yes, I did. The fact that you are a dishonest moron doesn't change that.

     
  • At 11:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Theory sez-

    Fish-> fishapods-> tetrapods

    EVIDENCE says

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

     
  • At 2:17 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "EVIDENCE says

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods"

    No, that's how you interpret it becuase you still can't understand they can co-exist at the same time. Again, if you see a horse and cart does that mean cars can't yet exist?

     
  • At 7:25 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: That isn't what he said - you didn't read the book.

    You yourself quoted it, "Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land."

    Relatives. Not necessarily a direct ancestor.

    Joe G: EVIDENCE says Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    Heh. You just got through saying we don't know that fish existed before tetrapods.

    Joe G: Tiktaalik is the poster child for the new evolutionary postulate "children species can show up before their parent species".

    Tiktaalik is not a direct ancestor of tetrapods, so that resolves your issue.

     
  • At 7:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "EVIDENCE says

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods"


    RichTard:
    No, that's how you interpret it becuase you still can't understand they can co-exist at the same time.

    You are a liar and what I said doesn't have anuything to do with existing at the same time.

    The evidence has fishapods showing up MILLIONS OF YEARS AFTER TETRAPODS.

    Don't blame me because you are too stupid to understand that.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    EVIDENCE says Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    Zacho:
    Heh. You just got through saying we don't know that fish existed before tetrapods.

    Non-sequitur. I see you STILL have serious mental issue.

    The EVIDENCE shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods.

    That is a fact- deal with it or fuck off.

     
  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: Heh. You just got through saying we don't know that fish existed before tetrapods.

    Joe G: The EVIDENCE shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods.

    So you admit the evidence indicates that fish predate tetrapods? That contradicts your previous statement. We just want to make sure.

     
  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    So you admit the evidence indicates that fish predate tetrapods?

    And the evidence also indicates that tetrapods predate fishapods.

    Zacho:
    That contradicts your previous statement.

    No, it doesn't. Apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

     
  • At 11:39 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: Fish existed long before tetrapods.

    Joe G: Except you don't know that.

    Joe G: The EVIDENCE shows fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods.

     
  • At 12:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW you DO have reading comprehension issues and terrible inference skills.

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evidence says:

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    Grandparent-> grandchild-> parent

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Evidence says:

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    Grandparent-> grandchild-> parent"

    Then how do you explain new species of fish comming well after the advent of fishapods?

     
  • At 1:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Then how do you explain new species of fish comming well after the advent of fishapods?

    Were they involved in the alleged fish to tetrapod transition? If not then how are the relevant?

     
  • At 1:55 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Were they involved in the alleged fish to tetrapod transition? If not then how are the relevant?
    "

    Okay - you're nearly thinking now. Do we expect all fish / fishapods / tetrapods to be involved in the transition.

    Also, more weasel words: "alleged"

    Come out and take a position - how old is the earth?

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Do we expect all fish / fishapods / tetrapods to be involved in the transition.

    No but the evidence needs to reflect the fish-> fishapod-> tetrapod, and it does NOT. The evidence supports fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod

    Rich:
    Also, more weasel words: "alleged"

    What's the weasel? As I said there isn't any genetic evidence that such a transformation is even possible.

    Rich:
    Come out and take a position

    I have and I have supported it. OTOH you haven't supported anything except my claim that you are a coward.

    Rich:
    how old is the earth?

    Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed.

     
  • At 2:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Evidence says:

    Fish-> tetrapods-> fishapods

    Grandparent-> grandchild-> parent"

     
  • At 4:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed."

    Okay - so based on this it is safe to assume, using the same type of 'reasoning', that you don't know anything and therefore should not be holding any opinions. Thanks for clarifying.

    Creationists - so predictable.

     
  • At 4:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "No but the evidence needs to reflect the fish-> fishapod-> tetrapod, and it does NOT. The evidence supports fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod"

    Tell us why you think that.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "As I said there isn't any genetic evidence that such a transformation is even possible."

    Erm. okay..what 'genetic evidence' would you accept?

     
  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "No but the evidence needs to reflect the fish-> fishapod-> tetrapod, and it does NOT. The evidence supports fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod"

    Rich:
    Tell us why you think that.

    It doesn't have anything to do with what I think.

    Ya see Shubin found Tiktaalik, a fishapod in strata that is younger than the strata in which tetrapod tracks were found in.

    No one has ever found a fishapod before the new date for tetrapods.

    So we have found fish before tetrapods, then we have found evidence for tetrapods, and after that we have the evidnce for fishapods.

    I take it you are just too stupid to follow along.

     
  • At 4:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed."

    RichTard:
    Okay - so based on this it is safe to assume, using the same type of 'reasoning', that you don't know anything and therefore should not be holding any opinions.

    Except that doesn't follow from what I said. Also what I said applies to EVERYONE.

    Are you willing to say what you did about everyone?

    EvoTards, so ignorant...

     
  • At 4:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "As I said there isn't any genetic evidence that such a transformation is even possible."

    RichTard:
    Erm. okay..what 'genetic evidence' would you accept?

    Show us what you have- MAKE YOUR CASE.

    I say no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is. And according to researchers there isn't any evidence that an organism is the sum of its genome.

    Evo-devo has been a bust.

    What evidence will I accept? Something other than a "just-so" story would be a good start.

     
  • At 1:42 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "So we have found fish before tetrapods, then we have found evidence for tetrapods, and after that we have the evidnce for fishapods."

    But you're conceptually fine with them all being 'round at the same time, right?

    "Except that doesn't follow from what I said. Also what I said applies to EVERYONE."

    It does follow. Your objection - "Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed", whilst grotesquely presupposing the mindstate of others is basically a rehashing or (Gasp!) creationist "where you there?". What a surprise! But you're not intellectually honest enough to apply the same yardstick to other things you hold an opinion on.

    "Show us what you have- MAKE YOUR CASE."

    It SO easy to see your creationist underpants. You don't want to be pinned to to a statement of what you'd find acceptable, because there's a good chance science may find it, and that would force more mental contortions as you try and reconcile between your holy book and reality.

    What would be acceptable to you? If you can't answer it, then the answer is nothing - and you're a closed minded creationist.

     
  • At 7:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "So we have found fish before tetrapods, then we have found evidence for tetrapods, and after that we have the evidnce for fishapods."

    RichTard:
    But you're conceptually fine with them all being 'round at the same time, right?

    Yes Rich and I have been over and over that alrady.

    "Except that doesn't follow from what I said. Also what I said applies to EVERYONE."

    RichTard:
    It does follow.

    No, it doesn't. And besides it is obvious that I know more than you.

    Rich:
    Your objection - "Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed", whilst grotesquely presupposing the mindstate of others is basically a rehashing or (Gasp!) creationist "where you there?". What a surprise!

    Wrong again, as usual.

    RichTard:
    But you're not intellectually honest enough to apply the same yardstick to other things you hold an opinion on.

    Noce projection you proven intellectual coward.

    "Show us what you have- MAKE YOUR CASE."

    RichTard:
    It SO easy to see your creationist underpants.

    It is sooo easy to see that you are a piece of shit coward who couldn't support its position if its life depended on it.

    RichTard:
    What would be acceptable to you?

    SOMETHING, ANYTHING, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE TRANSFORMATIONS REQUIRED ARE EVEN POSSIBLE.

    Stop whining and get to work.

    To date you have produced absolutely NOTHING.

     
  • At 7:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No one on this planet knows what makes an organism what it is, so by RichTard's "logic" no one on this planet can have an opinion on universal common descent.

    Thanks Rich- is that what you were shooting for?

     
  • At 7:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Your objection - "Don't know- nobody knows. Ya see it all depends on how the earth was formed", whilst grotesquely presupposing the mindstate of others is basically a rehashing or (Gasp!) creationist "where you there?".

    1- It isn't an objection, it is reality

    2- No presupposing the mindset of anyone as what I said is a FACT

    3- No need to be there to come to an understanding of how something came to be the way i is.

    IOW Rich, once again yiou prove that you are an ignorant asshole.

     
  • At 7:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evidence STILL says:

    Fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod

     
  • At 7:48 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Evidence STILL says:

    Fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod


    But you said there was no evidence that fish preceded tetrapod!!

     
  • At 7:54 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Evidence STILL says:

    Fish-> tetrapod-> fishapod


    Zacho:
    But you said there was no evidence that fish preceded tetrapod!!

    No, I didn't- YOU have serious reading comprehension issues.

     
  • At 8:15 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "SOMETHING, ANYTHING, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE TRANSFORMATIONS REQUIRED ARE EVEN POSSIBLE."

    Oh, you mean like selective breading?

     
  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There isn't any evidence that any breeding can account for the transformations required.

    Try again.

     
  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "There isn't any evidence that any breeding can account for the transformations required."

    Okay, let's unpack this. Can it account for any transformations?

     
  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "SOMETHING, ANYTHING, WHICH DEMONSTRATES THE TRANSFORMATIONS REQUIRED ARE EVEN POSSIBLE."

    Be specific, give examples, creationist.

     
  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "There isn't any evidence that any breeding can account for the transformations required."

    Rich:
    Can it account for any transformations?

    Why are you fishing? You should just present what you have and go from there.

    But you won't because you don't have anything to speak of and this is the only tactic you have.

    Coward.

     
  • At 1:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Be specific, give examples

    Umm THAT is YOUR job.

    To start you need evidence that mutations can take a fish fin and turn it into the robust forearm of tiktaalik, then onto tetrapod limbs.

    And you also need know what it is that makes an organism what it is.

    Good luck...

     
  • At 7:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Umm THAT is YOUR job."

    It's my job to tell you what you'll accept?

    You creationists never commit to or do anything. You even what others to calculate CSI for you!

     
  • At 8:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    RichTard:
    Be specific, give examples

    Umm THAT is YOUR job.

    RichTard:
    It's my job to tell you what you'll accept?

    No it's your job to support the claims of your position yet you never have because you are a coward.

     
  • At 10:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To start you need evidence that mutations can take a fish fin and turn it into the robust forearm of tiktaalik, then onto tetrapod limbs.

    And you also need know what it is that makes an organism what it is.

    Good luck...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home