Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[nPeace]

Not without at least some reliable evidence.

Of course. What do you think I had in mind?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Was that on Hogan's Heroes or Family Feud?

Either way, I call Poe.

It was on a documentary called 'Frog to a Prince"

 

[Jose Fly]

It was on a documentary called 'Frog to a Prince"

Are you drinking?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think the rule was made? If the power went out, how many of us could type?

It is not a rule. It is a practicality. Sometimes people cannot quote from the sources that they link. Why not check out people's links when they give them? I do quite often, even if they are not quoted from. I find out quite often more about the poster that way. Many links come from biased or poor sources. For example to even work at most creationist sites one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That means that their articles are not valid in a scientific debate. Some people link news from either the far left or the far right. Again, not every reliable.

 

[nPeace]

We convict and sentence people to death based on inferences from data, so I'm not sure why you think inference is an issue.

Should we release everyone convicted of crimes for which there were no eye witnesses?

Issue? Where did you read anything about an issue?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Umm actually the link pretty much starts out with the explanation of how the Appendix acts as a safe house for bad bacteria. Something I vaguely recall learning back in like primary school science class during the goddamned 1990s!

bad evolutionary science dies slowly...

Hackle's embryo claims and conclusions were in all sorts of science texts through the last century even 150 years after it was a known fraud

Then there's piltdown man

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was on a documentary called 'Frog to a Prince"

I don't think Dawson was ever on such a documentary. He is most famous these days for saying "Survey says! . . . "

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you drinking?

It may be the only sane answer. He still does not realize the error that he made. Too bad the picture I posted did not show up.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't think Dawson was ever on such a documentary. He is most famous these days for saying "Survey says! . . . "

ok Dawkins

 

[nPeace]

It is not a rule. It is a practicality. Sometimes people cannot quote from the sources that they link. Why not check out people's links when they give them? I do quite often, even if they are not quoted from. I find out quite often more about the poster that way. Many links come from biased or poor sources. For example to even work at most creationist sites one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That means that their articles are not valid in a scientific debate. Some people link news from either the far left or the far right. Again, not every reliable.

Some links are pages long. I didn't write the rule. I understand and appreciate the reason it was given.

 

[Jose Fly]

Issue? Where did you read anything about an issue?

I read your post as saying that you took issue with parts of evolutionary biology being based on inferences. Was that wrong of me?

 

[whirlingmerc]

It may be the only sane answer. He still does not realize the error that he made. Too bad the picture I posted did not show up.

I drink lots of water yes

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok Dawkins

Now the penny drops.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I drink lots of water yes

We were thinking there might be a fair amount of carbon in your hydrogen and oxygen.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Now the penny drops.

Dawkins was in a famous documentary called 'frog to a Prince" when he was asked if he could think of a case where any biological point mutation caused an increase in information and could not

see

hmm he dodged the question and talked about something else

 

[Jose Fly]

It may be the only sane answer. He still does not realize the error that he made. Too bad the picture I posted did not show up.

Either that or his patents were all pre-WWII.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some links are pages long. I didn't write the rule. I understand and appreciate the reason it was given.

You don't have to read the entire link. One can usually see the message that they are trying to get across in the first paragraph. The rest of the link usually supports that claim.

 

[nPeace]

I read your post as saying that you took issue with parts of evolutionary biology being based on inferences. Was that wrong of me?

You read wrong.
I need to get up from the computer though. Later.

 

[Jose Fly]

You read wrong.
I need to get up from the computer though. Later.

My apologies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dawkins was in a famous documentary called 'frog to a Prince" when he was asked if he could think of a case where any biological point mutation caused an increase in information and could not

I don't think there was such a "documentary". If you mean a dishonest creationist hit piece, I do remember him being asked an extremely stupid question and the sheer idiocy of it making him pause.

In case you want to know almost every mutation results in "new information". By definition if the genome is changed then the information is changed and it is "new". Perhaps you would like to try to rephrase your question. Don't worry, it can be answered.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Either that or his patents were all pre-WWII.

Hogan'a Heroes was a documentary wasn't it? It appears by @whirlingmerc 's standards that it would be called one.