Just Accidental?

[Sapiens]

This is just getting too funny.

I suppose you then diregard any human as an authority, until you can prove that there are humans who have never lied before.

You made a plea to PZ Meyers as an authority,

No PZ was not quoted as an authority, he was simply given credit for the words. His evidence stands on its own and the authority is simply the quote mining that is revealed.

who has been caught lying numerous times himself.

No, there has been some minor controversy in the blogosphere concerning PZ's opinion as to what Hitchens meant in a talk he gave, but that is not a matter of lying about facts the way Luskin is wont to.

Am I immature and petty enough to conclude that any source PZ Meyers has ever used in his life is also a lie?

I should hope not. But I also hope that you are mature enough to realize that Luskin is a congenital, professional liar.

It’s getting rather immature, in my opinion, attacking people rather than the sources they infer too.

Luskin is not being attacked as a person, rather his actions are being legitimately flagged as worse than suspect.

Your maintained opinion, in your own view, is unauthorative unless you can prove that you’ve never lied before.

No, an occasional misstatement, an exaggeration for effect, even a rare bold-faced lie should be exposed and dealt with. But wholesale twisting of the truth by quote mining is of a wholly different ilk and necessitates the wholesale indictment of the quote miner even if that appears to be personal attack, which in reality it is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But let’s first discuss the Lobopod... cite evidence today that the Lobopod is still thought to be a transitional. It is not.

From what I have read it is. What makes you think that it is not considered to be transitional. By the way, almost all fossils can be seen to be transitional today. You may not understand what the term "transitional" means.

 

[Sapiens]

But let’s first discuss the Lobopod... cite evidence today that the Lobopod is still thought to be a transitional. It is not.

Being more of a vertebrate guy I hold no opinion, as of yet, on the topic, but here is a recent paper and a list of papers that cited that paper even more recently.

Chinese Science Bulletin, January 2008, Volume 53, Issue 1, pp 87–93| Cite as

Comparative study of Cambrian lobopods Miraluolishania and Luolishania

• 
  
  • Liu JianNi
  • Shu DeGan
  • Han Jian
  • Zhang ZhiFei

Abstract:
The rare fossil Miraluolishania described by Liu et al. from the Lower Cambrian Chengjiang Lagerstätte in 2004 is regarded as an arthropod sphinx because it bears mosaic features of both lobopods and arthropods. The discovery of this rare transitional form offers direct fossil evidence for exploring the relationship between lobopods and arthropods. However, some scientists consider Miraluolishania to be a junior synonym of Luolishania because the former superficially resembles the latter in general appearance. Considering the significant differences between the two taxa, a thorough comparative study of Miraluolishania and Luolishania leads to the conclusion that there are definitely two different genera. Nevertheless, the “Luolishania” of the Haikou area is indeed “Miraluolishania”, whereas Luolishania is most likely the typical genus of the Maotianshan area of Chengjiang County.

5 Citations:

Sophisticated digestive systems in early arthropods

Jean Vannier, Jianni Liu, Rudy Lerosey-Aubril, Jakob Vinther and Allison C. Daley

Journal: Nature Communications, 2014, Volume 5

DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4641

Read Online

Cambrian suspension-feeding lobopodians and the early radiation of panarthropods

Jean-Bernard Caron and Cédric Aria

Journal: BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2017, Volume 17, Number 1

DOI: 10.1186/s12862-016-0858-y

Read Online

AN ORDOVICIAN LOBOPODIAN FROM THE SOOM SHALE LAGERSTÄTTE, SOUTH AFRICA

ROWAN J. WHITTLE, SARAH E. GABBOTT, RICHARD J. ALDRIDGE and JOHANNES THERON

Journal: Palaeontology, 2009, Volume 52, Number 3, Page 561

DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2009.00860.x

Read Online

Microdictyonplates from the lower Cambrian Ajax Limestone of South Australia: Implications for species taxonomy and diversity

Timothy P. Topper, Glenn A. Brock, Christian B. Skovsted and John R. Paterson

Journal: Alcheringa: An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology, 2011, Volume 35, Number 3, Page 427

DOI: 10.1080/03115518.2011.533972

Read Online

Cambrian lobopodians: A review of recent progress in our understanding of their morphology and evolution

Jianni Liu and Jason A. Dunlop

Journal: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 2014, Volume 398, Page 4

DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.06.008

Read Online






[/quote]

 

[Deeje]

Evolution is accepted because of the facts supporting it - hence why you've resorted to baseless personal attacks rather than debating the facts when your logic was demonstrated to be so poor.

Scientists themselves tell us that there are no "facts" in evolutionary science, so that is an assumption on your part. Just because they give you great graphics and important looking diagrams, doesn't mean that they have substantiated evidence.....it just means that their explanation sounds convincing to you. It is not at all convincing to me for many reasons. How do evolutionists demand evidence for a Creator and then accept evolution on an equal amount of evidence? This is about beliefs.

My logic is in line with what "empirical" evidence is.....something demonstrated by the senses. What I see with my own eyes and discern through my other senses, convinces me that those rocks on the beach didn't get there by undirected chance. The word "HELP" would mean nothing if I could not understand written language and it would be useless if others didn't understand it either...they would make no attempt to rescue me. Even "S O S" would not create itself on a sandy beach with rocks spelling it out by random chance. That is the universal distress signal understood in all languages.

Also, what "preconception" leads me to accept evolution, exactly?

The fact that you accept the concept in the first place opens you up to accept whatever they suggest "might be" or "could be" what happened, regardless of whether the evidence can be substantiated or not. That places evolution in the definition of a belief....just like creation. Neither of us can prove scientifically that our accepted belief is true. Stale mate.

The evidence that science presents is an interpretation of what scientists want that evidence to say. The fossils have no voice without scientists putting words in their mouths. There is no real evidence beyond what science wants to believe. Their evidence is interpreted to fit their beliefs....that is what I see. Take away the jargon and the inference and the suggestions and what do you have left...? precious little as far as I can see.

 

[Deeje]

So you disagree with @Deeje when she says that science is nothing but a giant "fraud factory" and is responsible for much of our woes?

What is this now Jose Fly...? A new tactic?...divide and conquer? Nice try.

"Evolutionary science" is a giant fraud factory....lets get that right. I have no problem with true science at all when it is provable and testable.....its the unprovable and untestable parts where fraud enters the scene and suggestions become facts without question.

If there was evidence with facts to back them up, not reliant of supposition or conjecture, then it would have been presented by now. Don't give us stuff buried in jargon or based on inference....just the facts in plain English that prove that all life sprang from that single celled organism, (that miraculously just popped into existence one day for no apparent reason) way back in the dim dark past when nobody was around to witness it (apart from the Creator that is). Show us how these simple cells eventually morphed themselves into dinosaurs and all manner of living organisms on this planet through beneficial mutations (which almost never happen) and natural selection which will never take any creature outside of its own taxonomic family.
Solid provable evidence.......OK?

By the way, almost all fossils can be seen to be transitional today. You may not understand what the term "transitional" means.

Now this is a classic example of a typical evolutionists response...."you don't understand"

.....we understand perfectly well that when scientists can't prove something in evolution, they fudge it. They present their diagrams and couch all their "findings" in jargon that nobody else understands but them. The average person is left assuming that scientists know what they are talking about.....but when you break it all down, you find out that its all guesswork and the power of suggestion. Those indoctrinated never question the validity of the evidence that science presents because they believe they can't be wrong.

Fossils are the weakest part of the evolutionary argument. They have no way to tell us much about themselves, so science likes to make it up.....and on what do they base their assumptions? A similarity in an ear bone or a tooth, or in bone structure....
They like to dress these creatures up in a nice wardrobe, when in reality, they have no idea what they really looked like...but it adds to the illusion that science knows all about them....when the fact is they know very little.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, we all die and go to the Grave, which is what hell (Sheol, Hades) is. Ecclesiastes 9:10.

We have to take God at all of His word, like Genesis 2:4, World English Bible: "This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens". Here, "history of generations" = "day".

No, they'd be wrong. Animal death, yes (that's why Adam knew what Jehovah meant when He said Adam would die if he stole that fruit); human death, no. Adam, as a son of God, could have lived forever. (That's still God's purpose for humans, through Jesus' sacrifice). So humans are a separate creation. (This answers the question below.)

You're missing the point. I know what YECs believe and I know what JWs believe, so there's no need to rehash.

The point is, your dispute/disagreement with YECs would seem much more in-house and fundamental, and therefore more important, than any disagreements you have with non-Christian "evolutionists". Yet the JWs here seem to focus most or all of their energies towards the latter, while almost completely ignoring the former.

It just seems odd and backwards to me. It's like if I had serious fundamental disagreements over biology with many of my colleagues, I'd certainly take that a lot more seriously than the disagreements over biology I have with young-earth creationists.

 

[Jose Fly]

You misunderstood. You acknowledged as fact that human intelligence/design/engineering is not from the mechanism of natural selection.

No, I said cars are not the result of natural selection. Pay better attention.

 

[Jose Fly]

I suppose you then diregard any human as an authority, until you can prove that there are humans who have never lied before.

No, I don't think in such all-or-none terms. It's that in this case, you've cited a person who has no expertise in the field of science in which he's attempting to speak as an authority, and has a documented history of deliberately lying about this very subject.

You made a plea to PZ Meyers as an authority

No I did not. I cited an example of Casey Luskin being caught in an outrageously dishonest quote mine. PZ Myers just happens to be the one who caught him. It's not like this is the only time Luskin has been caught doing this sort of thing. Would you like to see several more examples?

 

[Jose Fly]

But let’s first discuss the Lobopod... cite evidence today that the Lobopod is still thought to be a transitional. It is not.

You need to do some basic homework first. You should start with understanding what the term "lobopod" refers to, so you don't look so ridiculous next time.

 

[Jose Fly]

"Evolutionary science" is a giant fraud factory....lets get that right.

Earlier you said science was a giant fraud factory. Are you now retracting that?

 

[Deeje]

Earlier you said science was a giant fraud factory. Are you now retracting that?

No...as usual you are twisting my words to create strawmen, whilst still providing no substantiated evidence for macro-evolution.

It must be getting embarrassing for you I know. How many pages ago were you asked? All we need is the simple plain English explanation for your beliefs with real evidence for what you believe and without resorting to supposition, faith or belief.....how hard can it be?

 

[Deeje]

The point is, your dispute/disagreement with YECs would seem much more in-house and fundamental, and therefore more important, than any disagreements you have with non-Christian "evolutionists". Yet the JWs here seem to focus most or all of their energies towards the latter, while almost completely ignoring the former.

More divide and conquer tactics Fly?

Creating more strawmen to tear down?

I have not encountered a YEC on here who wanted to really seriously debate the subject. Some have had their two cents worth about the word "day" which was easily explained, but nothing substantial.

Those who have chosen their position one way or another will not benefit much from these exchanges, but the undecided may be gaining a lot from these posts. Hopefully they will see the huge holes that evolutionists try to cover up with suggestions rather than solid evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists themselves tell us that there are no "facts" in evolutionary science, so that is an assumption on your part. Just because they give you great graphics and important looking diagrams, doesn't mean that they have substantiated evidence.....it just means that their explanation sounds convincing to you. It is not at all convincing to me for many reasons. How do evolutionists demand evidence for a Creator and then accept evolution on an equal amount of evidence? This is about beliefs.

Really? Where? I am racking this up as another unsupported claims.

My logic is in line with what "empirical" evidence is.....something demonstrated by the senses. What I see with my own eyes and discern through my other senses, convinces me that those rocks on the beach didn't get there by undirected chance. The word "HELP" would mean nothing if I could not understand written language and it would be useless if others didn't understand it either...they would make no attempt to rescue me. Even "S O S" would not create itself on a sandy beach with rocks spelling it out by random chance. That is the universal distress signal understood in all languages.

Sounds like you are back to your failed claim of "chance".

The fact that you accept the concept in the first place opens you up to accept whatever they suggest "might be" or "could be" what happened, regardless of whether the evidence can be substantiated or not. That places evolution in the definition of a belief....just like creation. Neither of us can prove scientifically that our accepted belief is true. Stale mate.

The evidence that science presents is an interpretation of what scientists want that evidence to say. The fossils have no voice without scientists putting words in their mouths. There is no real evidence beyond what science wants to believe. Their evidence is interpreted to fit their beliefs....that is what I see. Take away the jargon and the inference and the suggestions and what do you have left...? precious little as far as I can see.

No, it is the only interpretation out there that has not been refuted. Instead of making false claims about scientists why can't you find and evidence for your beliefs? Oh wait, there isn't any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now this is a classic example of a typical evolutionists response...."you don't understand"

.....we understand perfectly well that when scientists can't prove something in evolution, they fudge it. They present their diagrams and couch all their "findings" in jargon that nobody else understands but them. The average person is left assuming that scientists know what they are talking about.....but when you break it all down, you find out that its all guesswork and the power of suggestion. Those indoctrinated never question the validity of the evidence that science presents because they believe they can't be wrong.

More false claims and breaking of the Ninth Commandment. There is no fudging you simply have no clue as to what a transitional species is. I can tell you but I will give you one more chance. It is amazingly hypocritical of you to complain that when you do not understand something you try to use this argument. Why don't you show that we are wrong when we point out the obvious? I know the answer. It is because you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Fossils are the weakest part of the evolutionary argument. They have no way to tell us much about themselves, so science likes to make it up.....and on what do they base their assumptions? A similarity in an ear bone or a tooth, or in bone structure....
They like to dress these creatures up in a nice wardrobe, when in reality, they have no idea what they really looked like...but it adds to the illusion that science knows all about them....when the fact is they know very little.

Technically you are somewhat correct. The genetic evidence for evolution is a slam dunk. And no, science does not "make it up". Once again you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. Scientists make observations. They fashion a testable hypothesis and then, and creationists just don't get this part, they try to prove it wrong. A good scientist will try very hard to disprove his own idea because he knows that countless other scientists will try to do the same thing. Having your idea shown to be wrong can be rather embarrassing. When you make false claims about others you only make your false beliefs look even weaker.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You're missing the point. I know what YECs believe and I know what JWs believe, so there's no need to rehash.

The point is, your dispute/disagreement with YECs would seem much more in-house and fundamental, and therefore more important, than any disagreements you have with non-Christian "evolutionists". Yet the JWs here seem to focus most or all of their energies towards the latter, while almost completely ignoring the former.

It just seems odd and backwards to me. It's like if I had serious fundamental disagreements over biology with many of my colleagues, I'd certainly take that a lot more seriously than the disagreements over biology I have with young-earth creationists.

I get your point of view. All I can say is, other theistic perspectives on the Bible aren't trying to destroy the validity of it, or question Jehovah God's existence. CD evolution tries to destroy faith in both.

At the very least, it renders the Christian faith as useless; saying man is simply a highly-evolved animal, to just live a short while and die, eliminates the purpose and value of Christ's sacrifice.

Take care, my unbelieving cousin.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get your point of view. All I can say is, other theistic perspectives on the Bible aren't trying to destroy the validity of it, or question Jehovah God's existence. CD evolution tries to destroy faith in both.

At the very least, it renders the Christian faith as useless; saying man is simply a highly-evolved animal, to just live a short while and die, eliminates the purpose and value of Christ's sacrifice.

Take care, my unbelieving cousin.

If your beliefs cannot stand up to reality that condemns your beliefs. Most Christians would appear to disagree with you since most of them accept the fact of common descent.

Tell me, do you believe the Noah's Ark myth? That is even easier to refute.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"Most Christians" are also taught the view that the national brotherhood of their respective countries, is more valuable than their spiritual brotherhood, and they kill their spiritual brothers during conflicts... Catholics killing Catholics, and Protestants killing Protestants. But Jesus commanded us to "love one another" (John 15:12; John 15:17), to even "love your enemy" (Matthew 5:44), and stated the words of John 15:10, and John 15:6.

So I tend to take their perspectives and comments on Scripture, at least their leaders', with a grain of salt! -- Titus 1:16
The import of John 13:35 is lost on them.

 

[Jose Fly]

No...as usual you are twisting my words to create strawmen

Ok, then my question to @Hockeycowboy is valid.

I have not encountered a YEC on here who wanted to really seriously debate the subject.

Funny how none of the threads you start or the little taunts you make are to YECs.

 

[Jose Fly]

I get your point of view. All I can say is, other theistic perspectives on the Bible aren't trying to destroy the validity of it, or question Jehovah God's existence.

I've heard many YECs insist that a non-YEC interpretation of scripture does "destroy the validity" of the Bible.

CD evolution tries to destroy faith in both.

Refresh my memory....what's "CD evolution"?

At the very least, it renders the Christian faith as useless; saying man is simply a highly-evolved animal, to just live a short while and die, eliminates the purpose and value of Christ's sacrifice.

What do you think of Michael Behe's version of ID creationism, where all life (humans included) shares a common ancestry?

 

[Jose Fly]

Here is the basis for your argument: anyone can take any trace fossil and find that it shares some of the traits or “appears” to look like some other group and then call it “transitional.” But the differing traits, current unknowns, new data are ignored.

Again, that's an interesting set of assertions. Any actual substance to back them up?

However, I’m glad that you have personally solved all of the following unknowns, speculations, hypotheses and have claimed them as fact that lobopods are the transitional between annelids and arthropods based upon outdated sources.

Now if only you could show where I've made those claims you might have a point. Otherwise it's just another example of the sort of things creationists are forced to stoop to.

Any “honest expert” will say that the evolution of lobopods, as of other very old groups with few or no fossils, is a speculative subject, on which no consensus has yet been reached. Classification debates have been going on for decades. There have been some interesting potential finds in China that may shed some more light on the unknown, but the credibility of Chinese fossils isn’t the greatest to determine if these are even legitimate yet.

The arthropod head problem also poses problems.

Again, nothing more than a series of vague assertions on your part, rather than any sort of substantive response to the specific data I posted.

To this point all you've done in response to the data is cite a habitually dishonest creationist lawyer, misuse basic terminology, and throw around a handful of empty, vague assertions.

If that's all you can muster, I'll allow that to speak for itself.

The long held view that annelids and arthropods are closely related (Articulata hypothesis) has been challenged recently by phylogenetic analyses using molecular data. The outcome of these studies is a clade of moulting animals (Ecdysozoa) comprising arthropods and some taxa of the nemathelminth worms. Monophyly of the Ecdysozoa has not yet been shown convincingly on morphological evidence, but is strongly supported by molecular data. The Ecdysozoa hypothesis is that anthropoids came from an unsegmented wormlike ancestor. Then the major concern with Ecdysozoa hypothesis is this would involve convergence.

According to “some” authorities, the lobopods “may” have been the evolutionary source of appendages in annelids and arthropods.

First, I'll note your hypocrisy. After falsely accusing me of copying without credit from Talk Origins, you immediately turn and do it yourself, copying without citation from THIS PAPER.

Now, please explain in your own words how you think that's a rebuttal to what I posted.