Evolution or Creation?

[W0RF]

I wish I didn't have to reference ICR for a technical paper on this, but volcanic rock has been dated to be millions of years old using K-Ar dating, sampling from eruptions that have occurred within the last 50 years.

 

[Aegeri]

I wish I didn't have to reference ICR for a technical paper on this, but volcanic rock has been dated to be millions of years old using K-Ar dating, sampling from eruptions that have occurred within the last 50 years.

This isn't too difficult, as when a volcanic eruption occurs a large amount of material from deep down in the volcano, and as a result deep down from inside the strata, is spewed forth out of the volcano and around the general area. These rocks that have been melted, sometimes just completely disentegrated take their atoms with them. Hence why you can get 'anomalous' K-Ar date results from a volcano.

Again, this is something that should be expected and isn't really that wierd. I would again, be more worried if the dates from rocks in the same strata level, from different places were massively different than from a situation like this (where you would expect subterrainian or even older rocks to have been thrust out).

 

[Sir_Brizz]

So, this is an irrelevant strawman. Flies never became lizards, evolution doesn't even imply this is the case.

The more you strawman this, the more ridiculous you make your argument look.

The only reason you think it's a strawman is because you WANT IT TO BE A STRAWMAN. It's not, I'm not trying to base a fact in a myth/rumor with this statement. Genetically modified fruit flies simply CAN NOT BECOME LIZARDS. THAT IS A FACT. Where is the strawman? What am I trying to prove wrong with this statement? Please. Enlighten us.

Actually genetically it isn't, nor reproductively and in fact, I suggest you actually read up on drosophila experiments.

Have fun looking at the massive amount of evidence for evolution from drosophila experiments.

I assume you have read through that entire page.

Yes, because the whole lot was supposed to be taken in context with the other diagrams, not just on their own.

Perhaps for YOUR discussion, but I was commenting on a completely different subject when I brought them up, so it was MY decision what parts of them to use.

I see we've ignored the DNA arguments I've bought up previously.

Not ignored, think of Jurassic Park, it's not completely off base biologically.

Which I disproved quite readily and simply. You're simply wrong and should go back to the drawing board for a new strawman.

Congratulations, you disproved an admittedly erroneous statement I made based on the fact that you can't look past the end of your nose and see I was making that same erroneous statement PURPOSELY.

Can I print this off and frame it? There are many people around the lab that would be sent into histerics with this alone. Honestly, this just about ranks right up there with some of the most ridiculous and blatant strawmans I've ever heard.

Go ahead. I don't pretend that I am the final word on everything biology. The idea is that by genetically modifying the resulting specimen (removing certain genes for each reproductive cycle), you should be able to get the originating species. Meaning if you were able to do such a thing to an Albatross (and assuming they did evolve from Prehistoric birds[WHICH IS NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE]), after a few "generations" you should be able to reproduce the prehistoric ancester.

Congradulations, this is the first 'new' argument I've ever heard from a creationist in 3 years and it sure takes the cake.

How exactly is this a CREATIONIST argument? If anything, it ought to be an EVOLUTIONIST argument, because I was arguing FOR evoolution at that point.

However, this just clearly shows what RR has been talking about for the last 4 pages. You are more than happy to discount someone because you personally think they are stupid than based on any actual facts. I realize I have made some errors in the things I've said, and I'm CERTAIN that you have. Unfortunately, there is no one here that cares enough to decidedly prove you wrong on anything considering your posts are longer than an Ayn Rand novel).

This is a strawman, but it comes nowhere near your last statement, which is just ignorant.

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman! Look I can do it too!

Indeed, in case you've wondered though, I did the same with an invisible pink unicorn but I'll deliberately admit it was a strawman for the same reason.

That's fine for you, but I refuse to admit my statement was a strawman...because it wasn't the "proof" of a blanket statement. It was simply a far-stretched fact.

Not really...sorry, I'm still stunned at that absolute shocker above. I'd have no idea where the hell you came up with that one, because it certainly isn't true, and if you SAW that I would say that would be better evidence of DESIGN than evolution.

Why is that? Biological makeup doesn't shift from neanderthal to human without something happening in between. If that's true, then dipping your own hand into the pot ought to be able to "straighten it out" if it's really evolution.

Pst, here's a hint: Evolution as a theory isn't about the worlds origins to begin with. The theory of evolution is that organisms change over time into new species, which divulge into further species. Essentially descent by modification.

I didn't say it was. But, then I was trying to keep my post at least a LITTLE on topic with the thread. I've never claimed in this entire thread that Evltuion doesn't exist or that all evolutionist theories are wrong. In fact, I am a big proponent of Intelligent Design. I don't know why a creator would waste his time making up his own rules when he could just guide the ones that are already there.

Since when did evolution cover that anyway? There are ideas, but ultimately evolution is a theory that covers something pretty specific. I'll happily argue about evolution, but if you want to argue about the origins of the world, why not try a new topic, because that ISN'T evolution.

Ever since Evolution/Creation clashed, which was about the time people started theorizing that the beginning of the world started with the Big Bang and evolution and chance took it from there.

 

[Aegeri]

The only reason you think it's a strawman is because you WANT IT TO BE A STRAWMAN. It's not, I'm not trying to base a fact in a myth/rumor with this statement

It is irrelevant to do with the theory, because it never says this is possible. You are making a strawman, end of story. Unless you are going to understand the process behind evolution, don't make an untrue statement that doesn't prove anything.

Genetically modified fruit flies simply CAN NOT BECOME LIZARDS. THAT IS A FACT. Where is the strawman? What am I trying to prove wrong with this statement? Please. Enlighten us.

You are simply making evolution 'absurd' using a grossly distorted piece of evidence that ultimately gets nowhere. The only thing this does is indicate you have no idea what the theory of evolution actually says or you're blatantly distorting it deliberately. As I'm more than 100% certain you ARE aware of what the theory actually does say, I can assume you've merely made an absurd distortion to make it easier to attack.

Guess what, that's a textbook definition of a strawman.

I assume you have read through that entire page.

Quite a few of those kinds of papers actually, my field is immunology and particularly Toll-like receptors, which were first discovered in... drosophila.

Hence the link.

Now, have YOU?

Perhaps for YOUR discussion, but I was commenting on a completely different subject when I brought them up, so it was MY decision what parts of them to use.

Fair enough then I suppose.

Not ignored, think of Jurassic Park, it's not completely off base biologically.

...

...

...

Hold on, science fiction movies are now proving...what exactly?

Congratulations, you disporved an admittedly erroneous statement I made based on the fact that you can't look past the end of your nose and see I was making that same erroneous statement PURPOSELY.

So? I'm well aware of it, I was doing the same for exactly the same reason against Worf.

Why is it so hard for you to accept your statement is a strawman, when I can also admit my Invisible Pink Unicorn was a strawman. I know very damn well what I was getting at with my IPU, but ultimately it's an absurd comparison and extrapolation upon the argument that a "God" could have created the world. It is obvious that there is a better reason to say the God of the bible may have been a creator over something I've made up on the spot (as Worf pointed out), hell I even think that God did afterall. I'm well aware and admit that was a strawman, but I did so with a purpose.

Your argument is nothing more than a strawman, just admit it and move on.

Go ahead. I don't pretend that I am the final word on everything biology. The idea is that by genetically modifying the resulting specimen (removing certain genes for each reproductive cycle), you should be able to get the originating species.

No, absolutely not. While I mentioned you can use the Hox box developmental genes between any two organisms and still develop the same structures, you cannot just 'delete' things and get the original organism, because that organism has adapted to 'use' those new things in entirely different ways. Many of the existing systems would have been modified, deleted or are no longer similar.

Meaning if you were able to do such a thing to an Albatross (and assuming they did evolve from Prehistoric birds[WHICH IS NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE]), after a few "generations" you should be able to reproduce the prehistoric ancester.

I DISAGREE.

How exactly is this a CREATIONIST argument? If anything, it ought to be an EVOLUTIONIST argument, because I was arguing FOR evoolution at that point.

I have no idea, to me it looked like you were trying to make evolution look beyond absurd. Heck this is almost like Haeckels argument in some respects that animals all go through a fish/reptile/bird/mammal (noting that Haeckel wasn't aware of evidence that mammals didn't evolve from birds) stage, except all you've done is suggest you can 'reverse' an animal back through a different stage.

However, this just clearly shows what RR has been talking about for the last 4 pages. You are more than happy to discount someone because you personally think they are stupid than based on any actual facts.

WHAT FACTS DO YOU HAVE. WHERE ARE THEY.

In have ALREADY pointed out why your statements are wrong, I haven't 'discounted' you without providing reasons for why this is the case (again, see the previous discussion on your statement when you made it). If you have any relevant 'facts' then I'd like to see them, if you are going to continue making blatant strawmans and ridiculous arguments while avoiding counter arguments presented that 'disprove' your 'facts' or point out where you are erroneous, then you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I realize I have made some errors in the things I've said, and I'm CERTAIN that you have.

Go ahead and prove it, unlike you and Renegade Retard, I'll happily retract anything I've gotton wrong and be certain to make sure I present a corrected answer that answers the original argument/question properly. If you want to see someone who gets it horrifically wrong and blatantly DEFENDS their incorrect position despite the counter arguments, look no further than yourself and RR.

Unfortunately, there is no one here that cares enough to decidedly prove you wrong on anything considering your posts are longer than an Ayn Rand novel).

Shame science takes a bit of explaining doesn't it? Of course, again, I've presented my evidence, references where appropriate and logic throughout this thread. You want to prove me wrong, actually learn about the subject or stop whinging that you don't like me pointing out that you've made ridiculous statements.

Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman! Look I can do it too!

Indeed.

That's fine for you, but I refuse to admit my statement was a strawman

Hence the difference in our integrity.

I could point out that an IPU is also a far reached 'fact' because you cannot disprove that my IPU could NOT have started the world (based on the same logic). However, I'll still concede it as a strawman, because it IS making one arguments position more absurd than it is and attacking it.

Give this up and show some honor.

Why is that? Biological makeup doesn't shift from neanderthal to human without something happening in between. If that's true, then dipping your own hand into the pot ought to be able to "straighten it out" if it's really evolution.

Again, no, because the genes involved are deleted, modified or duplicated and used for new purposes. It isn't as simple as you claim.

Yet if I went into the science and explained it you would then go:

I realize I have made some errors in the things I've said, and I'm CERTAIN that you have. Unfortunately, there is no one here that cares enough to decidedly prove you wrong on anything considering your posts are longer than an Ayn Rand novel).

Essentially if I give you the details as to why you are wrong, you'll just accuse me of making massive posts and ignore my arguments based on that (probably maintaining the same position). This isn't simply to explain why you are making a statement that is beyond absurd, but if I give it the explanation it deserves you'll just accuse me of the above and ignore my argument anyway.

Why should I waste time arguing with you, if you won't even listen? I'll HAPPILY give you a full and detailed explanation, but if you won't read it 'because it's too long' then I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't. I'm 'unfairly' dismissing your 'facts' if I don't put a detailed explanation, I'm writing overly long posts that aren't worth replying/reading if I do.

Best debating tactic ever, accuse your opponent of being dismissive, but when they give a full explanation to establish why you aren't correct, accuse them of being overly verbose. This ends up being a win/win situation for you (which is why this is such a good tactic you've employed). In one case, you win because it's the 'big mean scientist' merely being dismissive of people he regards as 'stupid' (which I've never ever said, this is you and RR developing a victim complex, a logical fallacy arounds the same lines as an appeal to authority incidently). In the other case, an overly long post that explains things in detail is made out to be 'unassailable' due to it's length and not worth responding too.

It ends up being win/win for you, lose/lose for me. One way you make yourself the victim of the nasty scientist, in the other you make it out that I'm being unreasonably long in explaining EXTREMELY COMPLICATED CONCEPTS IN AT LEAST A MANNER THAT IS IN ENGLISH THAT EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND (REGARDLESS OF DEGREE) SO THEY DON'T CLAIM I'M MERELY TRYING TO BE DELIBERATELY CONFUSING OR MISLEADING. BUT IF I DO THAT, I GET ACCUSED OF BEING 'WRONG' OR 'INCORRECT' WITHOUT ANYONE POINTING OUT WHERE I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG OR WHICH PARTS OF THE ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE ERRONEOUSLY, SIMPLY BECAUSE MY POSTS BECOME TOO LONG TO READ. NO, I JUST HAVE ARROGANT LITTLE ****S LIKE YOU AND RENEGADE RETARD ACCUSE ME OF VARIOUS CRAP WITHOUT PROVING A SINGLE THING YOU'VE SAID I'VE DONE. ALWAYS DEMANDING THAT I PROVIDE PROOF OF MY ARGUMENTS AND CONCEPTS WHEN RESPONDING TO YOUR CRAP, BUT WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR YOU TO DO THE SAME YOU SHIRK OFF AND FALL BACK ON THE SAME LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Once again, I hope people can see the sort of integrity, debative quality and factual information that 'creationists' present very clearly from this (not including Worf at all incidently, who has been very fair, reasonable and has made good attempts to answer any of my arguments in response to him). They demand evidence and I present it. They accuse me of dismissing their arguments 'arrogantly', so I extrapolate and provide a more detailed explanation so they can accuse me of being too verbose and deliberately being misleading. As you can see it's the perfect set up to ensure no matter how detailed and well researched my arguments, they can always be discounted without debate.

I didn't say it was. But, then I was trying to keep my post at least a LITTLE on topic with the thread. I've never claimed in this entire thread that Evltuion doesn't exist or that all evolutionist theories are wrong. In fact, I am a big proponent of Intelligent Design. I don't know why a creator would waste his time making up his own rules when he could just guide the ones that are already there.

Again, as I've said multiple times before when I was discussing this with Worf, FAIR ENOUGH.

Just don't call it a 'scientific' origin.

That is all.

Ever since Evolution/Creation clashed, which was about the time people started theorizing that the beginning of the world started with the Big Bang and evolution and chance took it from there.

Actually try 1859, and the question was basically already resolved by 1870 anyway.

If you want to argue creation vs. the big bang however, go ahead. I couldn't care less as I'm not a physicist. If you want to argue anything about creation from a biological viewpoint, at least have researched the biology BEHIND the statement.

 

[bobtheking]

The only reason you think it's a strawman is because you WANT IT TO BE A STRAWMAN. It's not, I'm not trying to base a fact in a myth/rumor with this statement. Genetically modified fruit flies simply CAN NOT BECOME LIZARDS. THAT IS A FACT. Where is the strawman? What am I trying to prove wrong with this statement? Please. Enlighten us.

he is calling it a strawman because that is exactly what it is. this is the DEFINITION of a strawman. evolution never said any animal could turn into any other, like you want to believe.

edit: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

how is this different from what you have done. you have made up this imaginary case, then attacked it. somehow this disproves evolution????

 

[W0RF]

Apparently I've not succeeded in weeding out the crossover arguments.

I'm retiring this thread, I feel beat up emotionally (not bullied by others, just exhausted from the exertion) and I'm beginning to question whether even having discussions like this are healthy for anyone/everyone in the long term.

I always tell myself I'm not going to get involved (I'm deliberately staying far far away from the religion poll), and every few weeks I get sucked into something I started out peripherally, and every time I just feel even worse than I did the last time. If I knew what was good for me I'd stay out of OT altogether. In fact, if I get jump-started on another "big" topic, someone link me this post so I can remind myself how crappy I feel.

Hope you all have fun, and play nice. Can't think of anyone here for whom I don't have tremendous respect (except, OST, for whom I have marginal respect, and Zark whom I slightly loathe ), so I hope there's no hard feelings all around. PM me if any of you want to talk about this more, just please, not from the standpoint of a debate.

P.S. - aegeri, your big typeface hurts my eyes, therefore evolution is untrue.

 

[Aegeri]

P.S. - aegeri, your big typeface hurts my eyes, therefore evolution is untrue.

Yes, the sudden development of large typeface from small typeface disproves evolution as there are no intermediate typeface sizes in between, or fossils of such text, that would establish the large typeface could have arisen by chance. It can only be concluded that larger text than normal must have been designed.

I am aware it makes me look daft, but I've done it more out of complete frustration with that particular tangent more than anything else.

 

[Dus]

You are more than happy to discount someone because you personally think they are stupid than based on any actual facts.

Funny as hell that. So far Aegeri has been the only one in this entire discussion that actually went out of his way to provide facts. I haven't seen you or RR provide any facts to back up your statements. Well, except for the fact that you can't turn birds into lizards, but that's just the most funny argument I've ever read concerning this topic and shows an uther lack of any kind of knowledge about the subject.
I've said it before: I'm not calling anyone stupid here and I don't think Aegeri is either. But if you keep insisting on statements without providing prove you're just keeping an empty discussion alive.
We can't help it if you take comments on your posts personally. We're trying to have a normal discussion here, so unless you can provide something more then: 'you can't turn flies into lizards' or the occasional 'you just think I'm stupid' don't join the discussion. Or at least back up your statements.

I realize I have made some errors in the things I've said, and I'm CERTAIN that you have. Unfortunately, there is no one here that cares enough to decidedly prove you wrong on anything considering your posts are longer than an Ayn Rand novel).

I've read his posts and as a Biologist I agree with most things he said. I'm not saying everything he said is absolutely correct. Ofcourse not, no-one here can claim to know everything about evolution. I won't and I'm sure Aegeri is not saying that either. However, I find it ironic that you attack him first with saying he doesn't provide facts and one sentence later you're saying that he provides too much facts. If no-one cares about his long posts, then why are you arguing about them? If you don't care, don't argue. If you do care, argue, but with facts of your own! So far this discussion is turning into a name calling comeptition and there's even fewer people who care about that.

In conclusion I'll say again what Aegeri and myself have said at least a dozen times: back up your arguments with actual relevant facts and we'll consider them, as any good scientist would. But you can't expect us to take your arguments seriously if you don't provide any facts to back them up. Until you do taht, your arguments are as empty as my wallet at the end of the month......



/me awaits inevitable flaming

 

[Sir_Brizz]

he is calling it a strawman because that is exactly what it is. this is the DEFINITION of a strawman. evolution never said any animal could turn into any other, like you want to believe.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where I said that EVOLUTION SAID THAT ONE ANIMAL COULD TURN INTO ANOTHER.

how is this different from what you have done. you have made up this imaginary case, then attacked it. somehow this disproves evolution????

I WAS NEVER TRYING TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION.

this isn't a difficult concept to understand. Did you ever read my very first post in this thread?????????????

My vote is for both. I do believe in a God, but I believe he uses SCIENTIFIC methods to accomplish his goals. I find that proving Creation is impossible. There really is no way to prove that we weren't created 10 seconds ago with all the memories and knowledge that we have now. I'm sure that God wanted it that way

WHY, pray tell, would I try to disprove something that I fully believe in????

Aegeri--
I don't feel like quoting your post for several reasons. I find it very humorous that you say I have no honor or integrity when I (and others in this thread) have removed ourselves from the discussion, trying to limit the personal attacks towards you, when you so indiscriminately toss them into our faces. It is obviously clear that, while you are an intelligent person, you are unable to carry on an intelligent conversation (at least on this subject).

And finally, I can retract some things I have said. I was not absolutely positive on the genetic restructuring you mentioned, I can see that it is not possible to get a fully genetically exact replica of the originating species by modification. Some of us still remember that we have things to learn.

However, like Worf, I feel exhausted from this thread. I didn't even hardly post in it compared to the rest of you, but it is completely worthless, especially here. So good luck, I won't be posting in this thread again.

 

[[IsP]KaRnAgE]

I guess this means evolution wins.

 

[bobtheking]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where I said that EVOLUTION SAID THAT ONE ANIMAL COULD TURN INTO ANOTHER.

But have you seen a fruit fly become a lizard? I didn't think so.

Genetically modified fruit flies simply CAN NOT BECOME LIZARDS. THAT IS A FACT.

the only way this is NOT a strawman is if you show where Aegeri or anyone else said that a fruit fly CAN turn into a lizard as a result of evolution edit 2: or anything else.

edit: and if you are not trying to disprove evolution, that what IS your point?

 

[W0RF]

I guess this means evolution wins.

Any good scientist would tell you the jury's still out.

Not on scientifically proving/disproving God, per se, as some might try to make of it, but in continuing to revise their methods and theories as facts continue to be made available.

 

[Renegade Retard]

You just proved it with ridiculous asserations that woodpeckers would have a tongue that was not actually attached to its mandible, so it would swallow it.

*sign*

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Just a tidbit from that article:

The hyoid horns of some species of woodpeckers are quite startling in appearance, as they can grow all the way up to the top of the head and, in some species, grow around the eye socket, or even extend into the nasal cavity

BTW - for those of you too lazy to read, that article is written by an evolutionist.

So, two things we've learned here kiddies:

1.) I didn't lie, you just didn't do your homework and convinced everyone you did. If you would have googled, it would have been the first item listed.

2.) I was throwing you a softball. I already knew what your answer should have been. I've had that link all along. Acutally, I once wrote a document arguing against Creationists myself who held the woodpecker tongue as a valid argument. I knew what the rebuttal was. You just didn't take the time to check.

Next time, don't accuse someone of lying without checking the facts. This woodpecker thing is a commonly known attribute that you should have had no problem finding. I'm disappointed. I thought you were better than that, but I think maybe your high opinion of yourself got in the way.

Well, it's been fun watching you dance around. You put on a good show. But like Worf, I've grown tired of this. I've enjoyed saying things just to watch you get yourself worked up, but it's getting to be too much work than it's worth.

 

[W0RF]

Um... you threw out a claim you already knew to be false... and argued with him for 3 pages?

I love you Ren but sometimes you make me scratch my head.

/back to the bullpen

 

[Aegeri]

*sign*

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html

Just a tidbit from that article:

Funny how you didn't point out that it isn't all inclusive of the species as you originally claimed, and that the site rebuts your point anyway in the same way that I did.

And best of all, the quoted statement doesn't imply it attaches to the skull, in fact it doesn't attach to the nostril either. Evidently, who hasn't done their homework? Look at that, you still end up having been caught in your own lies and defending the rebutted point even in the evidence presented.

You've still lost, and are still a misleading liar and now you've just deepened how truely pathetic and low you are.

BTW - for those of you too lazy to read, that article is written by an evolutionist.

Shame you didn't read it, the argument is very similar to mine.

1.) I didn't lie, you just didn't do your homework and convinced everyone you did.

You did lie, end of story Renegade. Read your challenge and then read the facts I presented. You did lie and were deliberately misleading.

2.) I was throwing you a softball. I already knew what your answer should have been. I've had that link all along. Acutally, I once wrote a document arguing against Creationists myself who held the woodpecker tongue as a valid argument. I knew what the rebuttal was. You just didn't take the time to check.

I rebutted it myself with similar facts and evidence.

But go on, you're convincing nobody

Next time, don't accuse someone of lying without checking the facts.

Yep, you should of indeed.

I'm done with you.

This woodpecker thing is a commonly known attribute that you should have had no problem finding.

Ummmm Renegade Retard, did you see I actually did rebut your argument on the last page? Are you even aware I gave a full discussion on why your argument was wrong? I'm not sure why you think you can run around claiming some sort of imaginary victory, when I already showed you for what you are.

Go on though, I'm sure we all believe you Sorry, you have no credibility and isn't it funny that you've only done this now well after I rebutted your point. If you had this all along, and this was your logic trap for me, wouldn't you have pointed this out immediately after I rebutted you instead of well after the fact now?

You've proven yourself to be misleading and to blatantly abuse facts, I see no reason why you've not done so again now merely to save face

Well, it's been fun watching you dance around. You put on a good show. But like Worf, I've grown tired of this. I've enjoyed saying things just to watch you get yourself worked

Ahhh yes, just a troll. Should have guessed.

Oh, and you're still a liar and a bad one at that, especially as you accuse me of not doing my homework, then what the hell was this:

Finally, I give you woodpeckers.

First and foremost we must dissect your misleading statements that aren't actually true of all these animals first, and then we can begin discussing it rationally. The immediate statement should be that you've been caught in your own lies RR, and now it's time to pay the piper. I was wondering why you were so quick to run from this debate after your woodpecker challenge, and I nearly fell for it thinking that I shouldn't bother following you up. But I did, and here you are, exposed for anyone to see how 'credible' you really are.

As you know, having done biology apparently, woodpeckers actually are of the family Picoides that is actually a group that doesn't consist of one member with exactly the attributes you have described to the point of being deliberately misleading (1,2). For example, the way you have described this, it sounds as if it's a horrifically complex evolution whereby the bird has somehow grown it's tongue through it's skull and through it's nostril or something equally as ridiculous. You haven't even alluded to the fact that the tongue is still attached in the same way as a normal birds (1), but what is special is the way in which the hyroid horns (funny though you didn't call them that) attach to the skull (or in reality, the lack thereof). Once again, why lie RR if you have the facts on your side?

Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. The main connections between the woodpecker's hyoid apparatus (which is a Y shaped thing that goes back up the skull and comes to rest inside the animals nostril from around the base of the beakm but does NOT grow out from the nostril down (discussed shortly)). The rest of the structure composes muscles and ligaments which attach the hyoid to the jawbone, cartilage of the throat, and base (not top) of the skull. For those confused, the same basic structure found in all other birds despite what RR would have you 'believe' and yes, there's that word again (1).

So where the differences come in is in what is called the hyroid horn (part of the tongue, which is a Y in shape, with the straight bottom part of the Y being the tongue attached to the base of the lower jaw (the beak) and the diagonal bits of the Y being the two horns that wrap up around the skull. Now oddly, it's strange you mention this as 'unique' yet this basic structure is actually found in chickens (1).

The hyoid horns are not attached as RR wants people to believe, but rather either grow that way during life (1) or in fact are no longer than normal birds (1). What a longer hyoid means, is that the animal has a tongue with a much longer reach, because the hyoid 'moves' down upon the contraction of muscles that pull on it to thrust the tongue out, and a longer hyoid means you can thrust the tongue out further.

So far, are we all with me?

Now there are actually multiple kinds of woodpeckers that have different variations on this theme, why RR feels he needs to be dishonest and claim only 'one' woodpecker exists with such elongated hyroid horns is unknown. What is worse, he forgets that not all woodpeckers have long hyoids (1, 2), such as the sap sucker, here are some woodpecker pictures for reference and severual other non-long tongued species (1, 2).

So why would such a structure evolve? Contrary to RR intellectually dishonest and quite frankly inaccurate description of a woodpecker, we should note that nothing new needs to have evolved off previous birds to develop the woodpeckers elongated hyoid horns (1). The structure is already there as looking at any diagram of a chicken would prove, the tongue has no particular attachments that are different than other birds (1), so what exactly is so complicated about this?

Well firstly, we must analyse why a woodpecker would want such a long tongue, and this involves looking at what many woodpeckers ultimately do: peck wood and put holes in it to attempt to get burrowing insects from inside it. Here, an extended hyoid horn suddenly makes sense, becuase you can begin to reach your tongue further down the holes you make in your little tree. This allows you to get insects that are deeper down in the tree, and it makes perfect sense that mutations that elongate the hyoid, and allow a bird to get insects it couldn't before would be of considerable selective advantage.

Unlike what RR tried to initially hide under a large pretense of false 'facts' the existing structures are already present, and selection for longer hyoid horns has a definitive point. Woodpeckers don't all actually peck wood (see picture site for that, or read reference 1), and not all of them have the structure that RR described as having 'evolved in one step' especially as there are several species of woodpecker that are intermediate in length (of they hyoid horns) from the extreme he bought up.

Simple selection, with a gradual increase in the hyoid length is a definite possibility, because all the existing structures are already there. Many woodpeckers have in between hyoid horns as it is, so you can certainly argue that there may be intermediates, and in fact, reference (2) establishes that some of these are adaptations that have occured multiple times. There is no problem for evolution here.

Congradulations Renegade retard, if you think the use of makes me lose credibility, what does lying do to yours? No wonder you were so desperate to leave this debate, and how uncanny you just proved what I've pointed out time and time again about creationists using fraudulent arguments right here for all to see. Take a bow Renegade Retard, you just ended this debate without even realising it. I maintain: I have never met a creationist who had any grasp of biology. Congradulations again, for proving me right.

1) Bock, W.J. 1999. Functional and Evolutionary Morphology of Woodpeckers. The Ostrich, 70: 23-31 (Who can be found on pubmed here., though the paper is not found online unfortunately)

2) Weibel A.C. and Moore W.S. (2002). A Test of a Mitochondrial Gene-Based Phylogeny of Woodpeckers (Genus Picoides) Using an Independent Nuclear Gene, small beta, Greek-Fibrinogen Intron 7. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. Volume 22:2.

Guess what Renegade Retard, you've just lost all remaining credibility you may have had left. Bravo, bravo indeed.

Aegeri--
I don't feel like quoting your post for several reasons. I find it very humorous that you say I have no honor or integrity when I (and others in this thread) have removed ourselves from the discussion, trying to limit the personal attacks towards you

Funny, RR did a pretty good job of proving himself just as much of a pomous ass as he accused me of AND he proved himself to be an idiot too. Of course, I could mention that I found some of the implications you made about me particularly insulting, especially without providing evidence or examples of where I grossly lied or distorted facts.

But whatever, ride your high horse there John Wayne, there be Indiuns about you need to shoot.

, when you so indiscriminately toss them into our faces. It is obviously clear that, while you are an intelligent person, you are unable to carry on an intelligent conversation (at least on this subject).

Intelligent conversation? You mean on the level you and RR have of making blanket unsupported statements and then taking the route of the "I am a victim" fallacy? Or the, "OH MY STUPID STRAWMAN STATEMENT THAT IS GROSSLY INACCURATE WAS A LOGIC TRAP ALL ALONG, BELIEVE ME, I MAY HAVE LIED ONCE BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN I WON'T AGAIN TO SAVE FACE" idea?

Yes, you and RR certainly are paradigms of intelligent debate, hats off I guess. You have a long way to go to find out what an 'intelligent' conversation is, one of them is producing your own facts and evidence to support their position.

You know, I don't go out of my way to be mean and nasty as you and RR have tried to victimise yourselves as. I just end up seeming that way because I won't accept ridiculous statements unless they have evidence behind them. Neither you, nor RR, provided any evidence to support your viewpoints and instead merely tried to say "OMG U R TOO MEAN AND U POST 2 BIG".

If a liar and someone who blatantly accuses me of being misleading with my facts without backing it up says I can't participate in an 'intelligent' debate, then quite frankly, I'm not interested in debating at your level of 'intelligence'.

Take that statement however you feel like.

And finally, I can retract some things I have said. I was not absolutely positive on the genetic restructuring you mentioned, I can see that it is not possible to get a fully genetically exact replica of the originating species by modification. Some of us still remember that we have things to learn.

Yet you call me into disrepute based on no evidence, claiming I must be deliberately misleading due to my post length and continually keeping the same position?

However, like Worf, I feel exhausted from this thread. I didn't even hardly post in it compared to the rest of you, but it is completely worthless, especially here. So good luck, I won't be posting in this thread again.

Shrug, doesn't bother me either way. I guess this is what it feels like to be on the losing end of the stick. You lie about your 'logic traps' to get around being proven hideously wrong and you accuse the other side of presenting too many arguments that MUST be hding they're wrong because of the posts length.

To anyone else reading it.

I apologise for the viciousness of this last response, but really, if you had just spent the last several pages being called a pompous arrogant arse by someone who lied through his teeth and is also an arrogant pompous arse (hence a hypocrite); and having the fact you make long posts implicated that you're trying to 'decieve' someone or put off counter arguments can be rather frustrating (with the effort I went to check and establish what I was saying). Especially from two people who never provided any solid evidence or arguments for their point of view at all.

I think I've found that the universal truth that when cornered, creationists resort to argumentative fallacies instead of arguing facts or presenting evidencce is well supported.

Just read what was written, even if most of it was ****ty and probably not very worth it and make up your own mind if you think 'creationism' or evolution is more valid.

 

[O.S.T]

Um... you threw out a claim you already knew to be false... and argued with him for 3 pages?

this is the point where everyone tries to get out of discussion without "losing their faces", like the japanese say

and every few weeks I get sucked into something I started out peripherally, and every time I just feel even worse than I did the last time.

I know this from school
everytime I had a wrong position I felt bad and personally attacked, I revised my thoughts/opinions etc and now it doesn't happen anymore
I don't say that it's the same case, but maybe if you revise your thoughts you woun't feel bad
just a suggestion

 

[W0RF]

I don't feel my position is wrong, nor do I feel that Aegeri or anyone here attacked me personally. I'm just tired of the circular arguments.

 

[PsychoMoggieBagpuss]

You should come over to this thread then
We're just getting started

 

[tool]

I don't feel my position is wrong, nor do I feel that Aegeri or anyone here attacked me personally. I'm just tired of the circular arguments.

But you get into these debates all the time, i'm surprised you didn't get tired of them a year ago atleast.

 

[W0RF]

to tool: I'm already working my way out of this part of the fo's. I don't know if it's noticeable but I haven't been involved in very many "big" topics since the election. Two or maybe three at the most.

to PMB: I have no interest in sustaining conversation over the mindless ranting of some coked-out college student with nothing better to do with his time than pour out his angst onto a LiveJournal. We have enough of those people right here.