Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[Subduction Zone]

So you are sharing the inferred, not observed? I am familiar with he inferred. You are not able to show me any observed?

Actually observed, inferred, and tested. The last is the most important.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you are sharing the inferred, not observed? I am familiar with he inferred. You are not able to show me any observed?

I thought we just covered this and you understood that evolutionary changes that occur over long periods are not observable within one person's lifetime.

I mean.....that should be inherently obvious.

 

[nPeace]

I thought we just covered this and you understood that evolutionary changes that occur over long periods are not observable within one person's lifetime.

I mean.....that should be inherently obvious.

Oh right. Sorry. Never mind then.

 

[Jose Fly]

Oh right. Sorry. Never mind then.

Um, ok. Not sure what all this was really about, but I hope it was at least a little bit helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Um, ok. Not sure what all this was really about, but I hope it was at least a little bit helpful.

He appears to be looking for any excuse to be a science denier.

 

[nPeace]

Um, ok. Not sure what all this was really about, but I hope it was at least a little bit helpful.

Man, you were

 

[Jose Fly]

Man, you were

Thank you.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not going to get into semantics of micro and macro. I don't play that.
Exactly. So you haven't observed it, in the sense I am asking.

Good. Because 'macro' is just 'micro' after more generations.

It isn't clear in what sense you are asking. Evolution doesn't predict that a fish gives birth to a frog. So an observation of an event like that would be a *disproof* of evolution.

Each generation is similar to the previous one, but over many generations the population changes characteristics. THAT is evolution.

We see a similar process in languages. If you go back 2000 years, there was no French language, no Spanish language, no English language. Those languages *evolved* from previous ones through small changes over many generations. Each generation could understand th previous one and be understood by the following one. But the changes accumulated, leading to very different languages.

The same thing happens with species. Small, adaptive changes happen every generation. Those small changes accumulate over many generations to give major changes.

We have witnessed these small changes. We have witnessed species changing to other species (reproductive isolation). Yes, the species involved are very similar, but that is precisely what evolution predicts. We also have fossil records, which are dated, so we know what species lived prior to now, as well as *when* they lived. That means we can track how they changed over time. Again, that is evolution and that is what we can observe in the fossil record.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes, but that is a very limited style of evolution. Why ignore the usual and focus on the exception?

Unfortunately the missing link is still missing.... so we can't focus on that
Best we can do is make dotted lines where they are assumed and speculate

Whether lizard - bird or ape-human the missing link is still missing

 

[Polymath257]

Unfortunately the missing link is still missing.... so we can't focus on that
Best we can do is make dotted lines where they are assumed and speculate

Whether lizard - bird or ape-human the missing link is still missing

No, what tends to happen is that there is a gap. We find a species in that gap. Then the creationists complain there are *two* gaps!

Perhaps the problem is in your thinking what that 'missing link' should be like and how it can be identified. For example, there are *several* links between humans and the other great apes.

Similarly for dinosaur-bird (dinosaurs are NOT lizards).

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately the missing link is still missing.... so we can't focus on that
Best we can do is make dotted lines where they are assumed and speculate

Whether lizard - bird or ape-human the missing link is still missing

The "missing link is missing" is another false creationist claim. When it comes to our line of descent creationists can't even decide which of our ancestors were "apes" and which ones were "humans".

Why do you post such obviously wrong claims?

 

[Audie]

Unfortunately the missing link is still missing.... so we can't focus on that
Best we can do is make dotted lines where they are assumed and speculate

Whether lizard - bird or ape-human the missing link is still missing

Did you somehow get the idea that there should be one
(1) link between a "lizard" and a bird?

The ancestors of modern birds were not lizards, nor
any sort of reptile you'd be able to put into a class
of modern animals.

You are, tho, aware that fossils have been found
of small dinosaurs with feathers, and, "birds"
with teeth?

I wonder how you would define "bird".

 

[Audie]

The "missing link is missing" is another false creationist claim. When it comes to our line of descent creationists can't even decide which of our ancestors were "apes" and which ones were "humans".

Why do you post such obviously wrong claims?

He does not know any better, he is revealing his ignorance in ways
that you would sort of think would be embarrassing.

If I popped up in a basketball forum and starting saying
things about the rink and the goalie, I'd look equally
ridiculous. But I would know better than to go in and
make myself look the fool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He does not know any better, he is revealing his ignorance in ways
that you would sort of think would be embarrassing.

If I popped up in a basketball forum and starting saying
things about the rink and the goalie, I'd look equally
ridiculous. But I would know better than to go in and
make myself look the fool.

And if you did make a claim about touchdowns and were corrected you would not go a site where they only allowed couch potatoes to write articles as a source of "rebuttal".

 

[whirlingmerc]

Did you somehow get the idea that there should be one
(1) link between a "lizard" and a bird?

The ancestors of modern birds were not lizards, nor
any sort of reptile you'd be able to put into a class
of modern animals.

You are, tho, aware that fossils have been found
of small dinosaurs with feathers, and, "birds"
with teeth?

I wonder how you would define "bird".

So what your agreeing with is the missing link is still missing?

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim
1) birds came from dinos
2) dinos came from birds
3) they both came from a common origin

I guess they're covering all the bases?

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex but T Rex is not even bird hipped... stegosaurus and triceratops are bird hipped but don't superficially look like birds so that won't sell I guess.

But is it science?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what your agreeing with is the missing link is still missing?

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim
1) birds came from dinos
2) dinos came from birds
3) they both came from a common origin

I guess they're covering all the bases?

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex but T Rex is not even bird hipped... stegosaurus and triceratops are bird hipped but don't superficially look like birds so that won't sell I guess.

But is it science?

We have found the "missing link" again and again. The missing link is a strawman. It is an incorrect creationist idea.

And for the last decade and more the consensus has been that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You may find an outlier or two, but that is to be expected. Look at all of the different sects of Christianity, some of them are straight Loony Tunes. But to try to claim all Christians are represented by one of the loonier sects would be dishonest.

Of course if you debated properly you would have realized that you lost a long time ago. As the creationists keep demonstrating here there is no such thing as an honest informed creationist. The best they can do is to keep themselves ignorant using any means possible.

 

[Audie]

So what your agreeing with is the missing link is still missing?

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim
1) birds came from dinos
2) dinos came from birds
3) they both came from a common origin

I guess they're covering all the bases?

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex but T Rex is not even bird hipped... stegosaurus and triceratops are bird hipped but don't superficially look like birds so that won't sell I guess.

But is it science?

You do say some of the silliest things.

1. Modern birds descended from a group of two-legged dinosaurs known as theropods, whose members include the towering Tyrannosaurus rex and the smaller velociraptors.
2. no way, you made that up
3. according to available data, you, birds,
and the dinosaurs all have a common ancestor.

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex
Not especially funny, and as above, you simply made that up, a total falsehood.

But whatevs. You've nothing to say besides silly
things you make up.

 

[Polymath257]

So what your agreeing with is the missing link is still missing?

In the last decades I have seen evolutionists claim
1) birds came from dinos
2) dinos came from birds
3) they both came from a common origin

I guess they're covering all the bases?

but funny thing... usually Tweety Bird comes from T Rex but T Rex is not even bird hipped... stegosaurus and triceratops are bird hipped but don't superficially look like birds so that won't sell I guess.

But is it science?

I've seen nothing that says that dinos came from birds. I've seen classification schemes that identify birds as a *type* of dinosaur.

No, Tweety Bird didn't come from T-Rex. There is still debate about the relationships between the saurischians, the ornithischians, and the theropods. The birds came from the theropod line of dinosaurs, but, as is common in evolution, there is more than one line of theropods. There is debate, however, whether T-Rexes had feathers. It is known that related Tyranosaurids did have feathers.

At this point, it seems that the ornithischians and the theropods are derived from saurischians and are sister clades.

Here's a discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithoscelida

 

[ChristineM]

But to try to claim all Christians are represented by one of the loonier sects would be dishonest.

Would it???... Only joking.

 

[Audie]

I've seen nothing that says that dinos came from birds. I've seen classification schemes that identify birds as a *type* of dinosaur.

No, Tweety Bird didn't come from T-Rex. There is still debate about the relationships between the saurischians, the ornithiscians, and the theropods. The birds came from the theropod line of dinosaurs, but, as is common in evolution, there is more than one line of theropods. There is debate, however, whether T-Rexes had feathers. It is known that related Tyranosaurids did have feathers.

At this point, it seems that the ornithischians and the theropods are derived from saurischians and are sister clades.

Here's a discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithoscelida

No, Tweety Bird didn't come from T-Rex

I suggest that no discussion of other related
topics proceed until he admits he was wrong
about that.

Refusing to admit such an obvious error and
skipping on to something else is the usual thing,
and it is just feeding the troll if it is allowed.