Throwing 1,000 Consecutive Heads

Nathan P

Active member
You're missing the distinction between supporting evidence and determinative evidence. The latter is evidence that all by itself determines a claim. Supporting evidence is evidence that isn't necessary but is congruent with a claim. Fossils need only be supporting evidence.

Also, Rossum specifically said fossils and DNA are sufficient (determinative):
I am missing no distinction because as has been pointed out all there is for the evos evidence are similarities in the dna and the fossils with no real evidence showing them evolving from one species to another.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I am missing no distinction because as has been pointed out all there is for the evos evidence are similarities in the dna and the fossils with no real evidence showing them evolving from one species to another.
Not only does none of that have anything to do with the distinction between supporting and determinative evidence, but thinking that evolution is merely founded on similarities is wrong. It's the fact of the relationships between similarities, that makes up the nested hierarchies, and that is seen in genealogical, historical processes, that is the fact that demonstrates evolution.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Not only does none of that have anything to do with the distinction between supporting and determinative evidence, but thinking that evolution is merely founded on similarities is wrong. It's the fact of the relationships between similarities, that makes up the nested hierarchies, and that is seen in genealogical, historical processes, that is the fact that demonstrates evolution.
No because hierarchies are groups and you have only similarities between the hierarchies and there are no distinctive similarities between one group of hierarchies to the next group.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No because hierarchies are groups
If you mean hierarchies are groups of groups, I agree. Is that what you meant?

and you have only similarities between the hierarchies
That is not true. There is a pattern of groups within groups that is only seen in genealogical or historical processes.

and there are no distinctive similarities between one group of hierarchies to the next group.
That's not what the theory of evolution says is the thing that confirms it.
 

Nathan P

Active member
If you mean hierarchies are groups of groups, I agree. Is that what you meant?


That is not true. There is a pattern of groups within groups that is only seen in genealogical or historical processes.


That's not what the theory of evolution says is the thing that confirms it.
Hierarchies are one group to the next group and you only have similarities between the groups with no conclusive evidence to support the toe.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You have been told the evidence and that is the unquestioned fossils show that they remained the same from their first known appearance until their last known appearance, and all the evos keep posting are ones with similarities which proves they have remained the same except for some minor things.
Congratulations. You are aware of punctuated equilibrium. Science is also aware of punctuated equilibrium.

Be aware that evolution is often a gradual process, so those "minor things" are evidence of evolution.
 

Nathan P

Active member
Congratulations. You are aware of punctuated equilibrium. Science is also aware of punctuated equilibrium.

Be aware that evolution is often a gradual process, so those "minor things" are evidence of evolution.
The problem with that thinking is since minor things are evidence of evolution, then you would have at least some major things to prove evolution. You can not say all the major things out of the billions if not trillions of them disappeared and yet we can find minor things to prove evolution out of the billions if not trillions that were once there . Yes we know they are going to be rare but as mentioned all in one group could not have disappeared and yet left enough in the other group for us to form the theory of the toe.
 

rossum

Well-known member
You can not say all the major things out of the billions if not trillions of them disappeared
I do not say that. Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus have not disappeared. We have the evidence for evolution. Both fossil evidence and DNA evidence.
 

Nathan P

Active member
I do not say that. Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx and Ambulocetus have not disappeared. We have the evidence for evolution. Both fossil evidence and DNA evidence.
We have discussed those and they are a bird or whatever and nothing else with some minor similarities to other species , but having no major signs of having evolved from another species.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Thanks for agreeing with Creationism
Coins are intelligent design creation. The tooling, the metal work. The metal stamping dies do not evolve.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
All species change over generations. 100,000 years ago humans did not have widespread lactase persistence mutations. When some humans started pastoral agriculture, raising cattle, sheep, goats etc. Today the descendants of those pastoralists have lactase persistence mutations, which enable adults to digest milk, as supplied by cows, sheep, goats. Those mutations are present in about one third of the current human population.

Evolution happens and can be observed if you are prepared to see it.


How long is a generation? For bacteria it can be about 30 minutes. Small animals take weeks or months. Elephants take longer than humans.


The chance I gave was the chance of reproducing or not. By observation the chance of any individual reproducing is greater than 50%, because we can observe that most populations are steady over time. That means that on average every individual has one offspring that reaches reproductive age and itself reproduces.

In my scenario half the individuals have 0 offspring and half have 2 offspring. That gives the observed one descendant on average per individual. That maintains a steady population.

Over time, my scenario does indeed produce 1,000 heads in a row, because any tails thrown are eliminated. That mirrors the face that all of your ancestors succeeded in reproducing. None of them failed, as shown by your presence here today.

As the saying goes: "If your parents didn't have any children, the chances are that you won't have any either."
EvoStory time
 

Komodo

Well-known member
Hierarchies are one group to the next group and you only have similarities between the groups with no conclusive evidence to support the toe.
What do you mean by "Hierarchies are one group to the next group"? Here are two kinds of hierarchy:

God - Angels - Kings - Nobles - Peasants. This is a non-nested hierarchy, in which we go from "highest, most powerful" to "lowest, least powerful."

Primates - Mammals - Verbetrates - Animals. This is a nested hierarchy, in which we go from "innermost, most exclusive set" to "outermost, most inclusive set."

In the nested hierarchy, there is a unique pattern of similarities between the groups, which does not exist in the non-nested hierarchy:

all those in the outermost set (Animals) share a number of traits and capacities among themselves (e.g., sense organs, mouths, symmetrical body structure);
all those in the next set within that set (Vertebrates) share all the traits and capacities common to Animals, and also share other traits and capacities among themselves (e.g. a bony spinal column, central nervous system);
all those in the next set within that set (Mammals) have all the traits & capacities common to Vertebrates and Animals, and also share other traits and capacities among themselves (e.g. warm-blooded, body hair);
all those in the next set within that set (Primates) have all the traits & capacities common to Mammals, Vertebrates and Animals, and also share other traits and capacities among themselves (e.g. grasping hands, front-facing eyes).

This pattern can be explain by common descent, i.e. evolution.
 

rossum

Well-known member
We have discussed those and they are a bird or whatever and nothing else with some minor similarities to other species , but having no major signs of having evolved from another species.
Bwahahaha! No major signs? Really? Archaeopteryx had teeth, no modern birds have teeth. Archaeopteryx had a bony tail, no modern birds have a bony tail.

Dinosaurs had teeth. Dinosaurs had bony tails.

Here is a chart for you to learn from:

Code:
                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
There is something incredible about people who can tell bare-faced lies and think they can get away with it.

Far from ignoring it, I started a thread about it.

You know that, because you posted on it NINE times. Do you think this makes you look good, CrowCross?
Karen 101.
 
Top