Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, archaeopteryx has been restored as “first bird” again. Maybe.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.:

“Archaeopteryx lost its exalted place in bird evolution,” says Lee.

But, this new evolutionary tree presented a problem because it placed archaeopteryx in a group of dinosaurs that either didn’t fly at all or glided in a way that was not bird-like.

Lee says, it meant that bird flight most probably evolved more than once and archaeopteryx possibly evolved flight independently of birds in a case of what’s called “convergent evolution”.

As far as evolutionary theory goes, such scenarios are not particularly elegant. So Lee carried out a new analysis of the data to see what he could find.

He found a way to jam it in, to be Darwinian, not convergent. If anyone believes it.

Comments
No reply?DrREC
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
But it's your name ScottAndrews2/Thornton. You came up with it.GinoB
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
GinoB/Thornton, I'm not thin-skinned, as you have given me the opportunity to demonstrate. But I can think of no greater insult than to be called by your name.ScottAndrews2
November 3, 2011
November
11
Nov
3
03
2011
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
Apparently in ScottAndrews2 magic Creationist fantasy-land, different features can only evolve serially, never in parallel. His evidence is in here.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2/Thornton
Think for a moment of the countless living things that both have a feature and also control or use it. For a process that works in single steps, to achieve a variation that requires both phenotypic and behavioral change to be useful is like a climbing a 10,000 foot faceless cliff barehanded. A climber that ascends one small foothold after another cannot ascend gradually. It’s all or nothing. That is the barrier. That is the reason why undirected variation and selection get you multicolored cichlid fishes while intelligently directed artificial selection, which actually envisions and reaches for a result, gets you poodles and golden retrievers.
In all your blustering and dumb inappropriate analogies you forgot to provide the real world barrier that prevents small phenotypic changes from accumulating into larger ones. What is the real world genetic barrier equivalent to your faceless cliff? Please link to the appropriate scientific research.
Don’t forget the echolocation. Don’t forget the behavioral difference which enables bats to use echolocation. Don’t forget the specialized ears. Or the the ability to emit focused, high-frequency sounds. (A lower frequency would be like looking at a computer with 50×50 resolution.) And don’t forget that none has any benefit with the other two. Please, explain how that accumulates.
LOL! "What good is half an eye?!?!?" ...is there any stupid Creationist PRATT argument you won't sink to regurgitating? How could a chihuahua evolve from a wolf ancestor as you say it did? The short leg bones, the short body, the smaller heart, the smaller lungs, the smaller brain to control the body? According to your dumb reasoning it could never happen because all those changes had to appear intact and all at once. In the real world far removed from Creto-land, all the components co-evolve together. A bat with 1% of current echolocation ability has an advantage over 0%. A 2% bat has an advantage over a 1%. It's differential reproductive success that matters, not being 100% all at once.
The limitations are what we observe,
You haven't provided any evidence for long term observed limitations, only extremely short term changes. Why are you even posting on an ID board? You're not arguing ID, just posting stupid Ken Ham caliber Biblical Creationist nonsense. Why don't you just tell me I'm an evil evo sinner damned to burn in hell and be done with it?GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
There are ‘known barriers’ to the mechanisms of evolution, GinThortonoB, and those barriers are the mechanisms themselves. By their very nature they are limited to changes which can occur in one or perhaps two variations
Evidence please.wd400
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
Forgive me, I just have to throw another log on this. Somebody stop me. GinoB/Thornton,
small phynotypic changes empirically observed to arise from known processes of evolution can accumulate incrementally over time into larger phynotypic changes, and there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation.
If this is so evidently true, then why do you only cite evidence of individual phenotypic changes, and not of their accumulation? Why not take, for example, the rodent and the bat, and describe the differences between them as a series of phenotypic changes, each traceable to a specific genetic or regulatory variation? Do that and you'll almost have an evolutionary narrative. Now you'll just need to explain why each variation resulted in differential reproduction. Here's a hint: a research paper explaining the difference in protein regulation between the forelimbs of rodents and bats gets you about .01% of the way there. Maybe. Don't forget the echolocation. Don't forget the behavioral difference which enables bats to use echolocation. Don't forget the specialized ears. Or the the ability to emit focused, high-frequency sounds. (A lower frequency would be like looking at a computer with 50x50 resolution.) And don't forget that none has any benefit with the other two. Please, explain how that accumulates. There are 'known barriers' to the mechanisms of evolution, GinThortonoB, and those barriers are the mechanisms themselves. By their very nature they are limited to changes which can occur in one or perhaps two variations. Being undirected, they cannot "plan" to accumulate dozens of variations which coordinate to effect a greater change. Only intelligence plans. Think for a moment of the countless living things that both have a feature and also control or use it. For a process that works in single steps, to achieve a variation that requires both phenotypic and behavioral change to be useful is like a climbing a 10,000 foot faceless cliff barehanded. A climber that ascends one small foothold after another cannot ascend gradually. It's all or nothing. That is the barrier. That is the reason why undirected variation and selection get you multicolored cichlid fishes while intelligently directed artificial selection, which actually envisions and reaches for a result, gets you poodles and golden retrievers. Science is what we observe, not what we imagine. The limitations are what we observe, and the boundless possibility is what you imagine. You can't overturn observed reality with hopeful imagination. I'm not upset that fishes can't evolve into giraffes. I already knew that. Last time you came up with this priceless gem, "there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation." I've never seen so many wrong thoughts in so few words. My head almost exploded. More, please.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Of course evolution doesn’t define the word “significant.” Why call attention to its weakness?
Why define a concept that is biologically meaningless and useless except to slimy Creationists?
Your argument is that whatever makes fish change colors has no limits and is responsible for all diversity in biology. And, oddly, you claim that only magic can prevent it from acting.
LOL! You just love to dishonestly twist things, don't you? That is not my argument, nor anyone in the scientific community that I know. The scientific argument is that small phynotypic changes empirically observed to arise from known processes of evolution can accumulate incrementally over time into larger phynotypic changes, and there is no known barrier to prevent the accumulation. You're the guy claiming there is such a barrier. Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate one.
It’s not an easy thing to test the limits of evolutionary mechanisms because the process is typically so slow. But to the extent that they have been tested, particularly with bacteria and yeast, such tests demonstrate limitations rather than open-ended evolution.
You haven't demonstrated that the real-time changes we can observe are any kind of hard limits, or identified any mechanism for such limits. You're claiming because I can only walk 3 miles in one hour that I can never walk 100 miles given enough time.
Those limits are also predicted by our understanding of how many combined mutations are required to produce even the smallest of new features.
LOL! What predictions are those? I hope you're not referring to Behe's error-filled brain fart 'Edge of Evolution' that's been soundly refuted and rejected by the scientific community. Behe knew it was trash, so much so he didn't even bother to submit it to any mainstream science journals but published it himself in a popular press book. That's real ID science for ya!
You also make the case for me when you go digging for the best case of evolutionary changes described in evolutionary terms that you can find and come back with different-colored cichlid fishes, just as I predicted.
"Waaaaah! Waaaah! The fish didn't evolve into a giraffe like I demanded! Waaaah!
What was it you’ve said over and over about willfully ignoring evidence?
That's you alright.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Me: "What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished." Joe: "That doesn’t matter- ...." How very scientific. It doesn't matter where the bar is set, or how the value is quantified-it is design. "nature, operating freely has never been observed to produce any significant amount of specified information that I am aware of" De novo genes? Novel activities? All designed, I guess? How many amino acid changes is 10-20 bits, Joe?DrREC
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
That is a lot of verbage, but no answer. "Where we are able to observe, functionally specific, complex information beyond 500 – 1,000 bits is reliably the produce of intelligence" Let us start here: give me an example of 500-100 bits of information arising at once, and the calculation. Otherwise, design has never been observed. And don't say life. My genome contains a lot of information, but not greater than the universal probability bond MORE than that of my parents. "to overturn, all that would have to be done is to provide reliable counter-examples." Every time I provide such, you conclude either it is a designed experiment, or the result of design in nature. ID is unfalsifiable, because it is a self-defining inference and not a mechanism. If I produce an example of X amount of information arising naturally, you can (and have) conclude it is design in action because of the inference. Do you not get that it is impossible to rule out design?DrREC
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
GinoB, Of course evolution doesn't define the word "significant." Why call attention to its weakness? Your argument is that whatever makes fish change colors has no limits and is responsible for all diversity in biology. And, oddly, you claim that only magic can prevent it from acting. If that is your hypothesis, then go about defining a specific test and gathering some evidence to support it. You have asserted an opinion and given me nothing of substance to refute. It's not an easy thing to test the limits of evolutionary mechanisms because the process is typically so slow. But to the extent that they have been tested, particularly with bacteria and yeast, such tests demonstrate limitations rather than open-ended evolution. Those limits are also predicted by our understanding of how many combined mutations are required to produce even the smallest of new features. You also make the case for me when you go digging for the best case of evolutionary changes described in evolutionary terms that you can find and come back with different-colored cichlid fishes, just as I predicted. What was it you've said over and over about willfully ignoring evidence?ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
Right now all observations say your position doesn't have anything- not one ounce of evidence that mutations can accumaulate in such a way as to give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems. It appears that anything requiring more than two specific mutations is beyond the reach of blind, undirected chemical processes. The point being is that YOU cannot make YOUR case.Joseph
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
Dr Rec: The design inference is a lot more sophisticated than the caricature you present. 1: We explain the unobserved past scientifically on its traces in the present and the causal factors/forces known to be sufficient to explain such, indeed on the best explanation. 2: this is what say Lyell used, or Darwin, or in another form, Newton to explain the remote star systems and the laws that are likely to govern their behaviour. 3: Causal factors come in many flavours, but can be clustered under heads chance, necessity and intelligence, for certain purposes. 4: We know empirically tested, reliable indicia of each of these, relative to aspects of objects, phenomena, processes etc of interest. Trivially, dropped heavy objects reliably fall by mechanical necessity, and if they are fair dice will tumble to values by chance, etc. 5: Mechanical necessity best explians lawlike regularities. 6: High contingency traces to chance and/or necessity. 7: Where we are able to observe, functionally specific, complex information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits is reliably the produce of intelligence, as we expect analytically from the infinite monkey analysis. (The whole Internet is a collection of cases in point.) 8: We have strong inductive reason to infer that the best explanation for unobserved causal processes that give rise to FSCI, is design. 9: to overturn, all that would have to be done is to provide reliable counter-examples. These are simply not forthcoming. 10: If you were asked to bet serious money on taking a one-straw chance sample from a hay bale 2 1/2 light days across and known to contain a solar system, that the sample would hit solar system not straw, you would know why. (The bet is unwinnable, on sampling theory.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
That is also why I invite Thornton (and you) to explain why you feel that different-colored cichlid species are significant. Make your case.
Evolutionary biology doesn't define a term 'significant'. There are evolutionary driven changes, period. And right now there are no known limits on changes except those imposed by the laws of physics (i.e. mass vs. mechanical strength of bone needed to support the mass) You're the guy claiming there is some magic barrier that allows 'insignificant' phenotype changes but prohibits 'significant' ones. Make your case.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Go back and read my posts again. I’ve said the same things over and over and over.
I did. I even posted them above. You changed your claims and added the weasel word "significant".
You labor under the misconception that showing the physical and genetic differences between two organisms somehow explains why one or both changed
The Seehausen paper didn't just document the changes, it explained with supporting evidence exactly why the changes occurred. Deny the results all you like, but they won't go away.
No one is saying that any of those mechanisms does not exist.
You said it, right here:
ScottAndrews2: How can it get past you that none of these evolutionary transitions are ever, ever explained in terms of evolutionary mechanisms?"
ScottAndrews2: “No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms."
Then when you were shown wrong you changed your claims. Again, not very honest but absolutely typical Creationist.
As predicted, combined evolutionary mechanisms produce very limited results.
Here come the same tired, stupid Creationist arguments yet again...What are the limits and how did you determine them? Tell us specifically what mechanism would make it impossible for a mouse's paw to evolve through small incremental steps over generations into a bat's wing. Go on, say it: "Dogs are still dogs!! No one ever saw a dog evolve into a rhinoceros!" ...you know you want to.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Timbo, Stop blaming others because you don't understand their position. That is a standard evo ploy and it is very old and tiring. What are the limits? Well it appears that if something takes multiple mutations it is out of the reach of blind, undirected chemical processes.Joseph
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Timbo, I've stated before that for the sake of these debates, it would be nice if there were an agreed-upon understanding of what a "significant change" is. For me to acknowledge more than once that the expression lacks definition and for you to jump on it anyway is a bit sad. I've said the same thing to other evolutionists and they understand what I am trying to say. That is a higher level of discussion in which you don't seem interested. That is also why I invite Thornton (and you) to explain why you feel that different-colored cichlid species are significant. Make your case.
What scientific principle do you know of that would cause evolutionary changes of the sort illustrated by GinoB to suddenly stop?
I don't know that they have. For all I know the cichlid fishes are still changing colors.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
drREC:
ID is an inference that natural processes could never produce X amount of new information.
Specified information- nature, operating freely cannot produce X amount of specified information.
What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished.
That doesn't matter- just show us what nature, operating freely can produce. That is what I mean when I say our knowledge of cause and effect relationships- nature, operating freely has never been observed to produce any significant amount of specified information that I am aware of (I am talking 10-20 bits of SI tops).Joseph
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
I've got to say, that's a pretty weak response ScottAndrews2. As GinoB says, dismissing evolutionary changes as being "within expected limitations" is a standard creationist ploy. What are expected limitations? Why are they expected? What is causing the limitations? What scientific principle do you know of that would cause evolutionary changes of the sort illustrated by GinoB to suddenly stop? And you acknowledge that your use of the word "significant" is arbitrary and undefined. Yet you use it anyway, and think that you are doing science?Timbo
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
GinoB/Thornton, Go back and read my posts again. I've said the same things over and over and over. No findings combine evolutionary mechanisms to explain a significant effect. When known evolutionary mechanism are combined, the results are within expected limitations, i.e. fish of different colors. If anyone is reading this and actually cares, I have no doubt that they picked that up. The goalposts have not moved. LIAR!!! (Just kidding. I wanted to see if that feels good. Doesn't do anything for me. :)) Describing a difference is not explaining change. I'm taller now than I used to be. That is a difference. Explaining why is yet another matter. You labor under the misconception that showing the physical and genetic differences between two organisms somehow explains why one or both changed. But that's irrelevant. As predicted, combined evolutionary mechanisms produce very limited results. No one is saying that any of those mechanisms does not exist. They just give you different-colored fish. Or lizards with larger heads. Or smaller heads. Whatever. (And I'm being charitable by not disputing the authors' vague claims of natural selection. How do you like that? Charity.) How is it my fault if it's underwhelming? BTW, I've acknowledged more than once that "significant" is arbitrary and undefined. That's one sad "gotcha" moment. Against the backdrop of all know biological diversity, do you think that different-colored cichlid fish are significant? Why?ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
You are right. I shouldn't let my disgust at the willful dishonesty of others pull me down to their level. I'll try harder in the future.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
GinoB wrote at 20.1.1.1.6:
You creationist clowns are nothing if not predictable. Exactly as I called it above, you come back with the idiotic excuse “but they’re still FISH!!! I demand to see them evolve legs and compete on Dancing With The Stars!!”
Me thinks your time is almost up here Gino. Do you not have it in you to be civil? In case you hadn't noticed, you are now the only one acting like a petulant braggart. Elevate yourself a little.Stu7
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
GinoB, Not even YEC denies speciation- the change you reference is OK within a baraminology framework- You call Creationists "clowns" all you want- in reality it is your ignorance on display for all to see- that is your ignorance of your opponents' positions.Joseph
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
A single observation of your so-called design. ID is an inference that natural processes could never produce X amount of new information. What that amount is, and how to quantify it is unestablished. The bigger deal is there is not a single empirical observation of a gain of information from parent to progeny that would exceed that amount. Unless someone can provide me that. My genome has a lot of information, but It doesn't have a lot more information that my parents.DrREC
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
In my own words: The Seehausen paper indicates that a population of cichlid fish has diverged both in color and in mating preference according to color, indicating that both the color and the fishes’ sensory perceptions have diverged. The selection appears to be sexual. This was tested by putting different fish together and seeing which ones they preferred to mate with.
Keep going Mr. Science. You forgot the most important part of the paper that shows the resultant genetic changes in both the LWS gene responsible for the color gradient as well as the divergence in the SWS2A opsin gene responsible for the ability to visually detect the color changes. The paper shows both the mechanism of selection and the genetic changes that drove the selection. The combined things you say don't exist. From the paper: "The following sensory drive speciation scenario is fully consistent with our data. First, divergent natural selection between light regimes at different water depths acts on LWS. Second, sexual selection for conspicuous colouration is also divergent because perceptual biases differ between light regimes. Third, their interaction generates initial deviation from linkage equilibrium between LWS and nuptial colour alleles as observed on all but the steepest gradients. Fourth, subsequent disruptive selection due to reduced fitness of genotypes with a mismatch between LWS and colour alleles causes speciation, perhaps involving reinforcement-like selection for mating preferences, whereby male nuptial colour may serve as a marker trait for opsin genotype."
If you recall, I explained to you that every example you were going to come up with would be missing one of two things – either a combination of evolutionary mechanisms, or evidence of significant evolutionary change. The Seehausen paper is an example of the latter. Take a long, hard look at the pictures of “variations” it contains. It’s the same fish in different colors, perfectly capable of interbreeding.
You creationist clowns are nothing if not predictable. Exactly as I called it above, you come back with the idiotic excuse "but they're still FISH!!! I demand to see them evolve legs and compete on Dancing With The Stars!!" I'll also remind you that wasn't your original claim, remember?
ScottAndrews2: "No evolutionary change is ever explained in terms of specific evolutionary mechanisms."
First it was NO evolutionary change in explained. Now it's no SIGNIFICANT evolutionary change is explained, where of course only you can decide what is "significant". Keep tap dancing and moving those goalposts there Scotty, it's real entertaining for the lurkers. ...and another dumb claim
ScottAndrews2: "Where is the selection? How did selection apply to any particular genetic change, or how did drift? That is the evolutionary explanation. It’s not wrong. It’s missing."
Still claim the selection part is missing? Let's not forget your blustering "challenge" either:
ScottAndrews2: "Evolution says that this genetic change occurred, had this phenotypic effect, and conferred a specific reproductive or survival advantage. Then another occurred. Or perhaps something varied, had no immediate effect, but drifted across the population and combined with other variations to produce effects requiring multiple variations. And over time these variations accumulate to produce new features, organs, behaviors, etc. All you have to do is explain any evolutionary change in those terms. Any. Anything. Something. Good grief, man, imagine something! Make something up!
Which is exactly. what the Seehausen work did. Exactly. Sorry Scotty, you made yourself look like a right ignorant fool on this one.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Fossfur, In reply to "I’ve had my beliefs my entire life" You say, "That in itself should be cause for alarm." Please elaborate. All parents teach their children certain beliefs unless they sperm donors or give them up for adoption. Schools also participate. What course do you recommend for children as they grow older: 1) Analyze those beliefs and make their own decisions, keeping some beliefs and rejecting others or 2) Reject everything they believed in childhood in its entirety, because believing something in adulthood that you believed as a child is a 'cause for alarm.' You are either assuming that #1 is not true in my case, or advocating #2. Which? Why? It's okay to be snide, but think it through first. Wouldn't you like to participate in a higher level of discourse than GinoB/Thornton? I'd like to think you would.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
And yet ID is based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism- it can be tested and falsified. What else does it need before it is science?Joseph
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Thorton/GinoB,
Why don’t you summarize the Seehausen paper in your own words, then tell us why is doesn’t meet your challenge of providing a mechanism and genetic evidence for speciation.
In my own words: The Seehausen paper indicates that a population of cichlid fish has diverged both in color and in mating preference according to color, indicating that both the color and the fishes' sensory perceptions have diverged. The selection appears to be sexual. This was tested by putting different fish together and seeing which ones they preferred to mate with. If you recall, I explained to you that every example you were going to come up with would be missing one of two things - either a combination of evolutionary mechanisms, or evidence of significant evolutionary change. The Seehausen paper is an example of the latter. Take a long, hard look at the pictures of "variations" it contains. It's the same fish in different colors, perfectly capable of interbreeding. It's interesting, but the variation is too minor to be of interest. It demonstrates that variation and selection produce results within expected limitations. It sheds no light on how gills, fins, or scales might have evolved. In other words, it makes my point, not yours. That does not reflect on Seehausen. His paper says pretty much exactly what he says it does. It reflects on you, Thornton, because you don't know what it says. You seem to think that as long as you copy and paste a few links you've made some point, regardless of what they do or do not say. Now, back to you. In your own words, what exactly in this paper do you find so convincing or persuading?ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews2
Was this where you explained the relevance of a research paper in your own words? GB: "It’s about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences." I then pointed out that the paper said nothing about why such changes might have been selected. The authors state outright that they do not know what role selection might have played
The paper you quote-mined that snippet from wasn't from the same paper you imbecile. It was from the Elmer paper, not the Seehausen paper. You can't even keep your lies straight. Why don't you summarize the Seehausen paper in your own words, then tell us why is doesn't meet your challenge of providing a mechanism and genetic evidence for speciation. Can't lie your way out of that one. You're going to have to do more than just skim the abstract this time.GinoB
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
GinoB, a.k.a. Thornton from darwins-god.blogspot.com, Was this where you explained the relevance of a research paper in your own words?
It’s about how cichlid fish diversified due to selection driven by genetically caused color differences.
I then pointed out that the paper said nothing about why such changes might have been selected. The authors state outright that they do not know what role selection might have played. That leaves you, not with an explanation of how they diversified, but rather the observation that they are diverse. I'm certain that the only words of it you read are the ones I "quote-mined" for you. No one is saying that your "evidence" does not exist. But existence is not enough. It must actually support your argument. I am not ignoring it. I am giving it reasonable consideration, and determining that it does not support your argument, and telling you exactly why in simple terms that you can attempt to refute. Sadly, you have retreated into a corner from which you can only hurl the same accusations of lying and denying and ignoring over and over. I can tell that you're getting frustrated because your rhetoric is heating up, your language has turned foul, and you've gotten careless and given away your identity. Really, start thinking exit strategy.ScottAndrews2
November 2, 2011
November
11
Nov
2
02
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply