Scientific Urban Legends

Theres where evidence doesnt support what you "believe". The "Pile of bones" is made up of fairly clear sequences of adaptation that results in speciation and higher.
always spoke of genomes as similar to "bar codes". The very same analogy can be made for the
Piles of bones"

You really wish to go just so far in your own journey and you dont wish to go any further. WHYZATT, afraid you may find something you dont wish to understand better?? PS did you see Ford v Ferrari yet??

Whole lotta assumptions there, even including what I wish for.


I don’t quite see the connection but if I did I’d argue that barcodes require an intelligence to create such a phenomenon. Same thing goes for the small land mammal to whale thing. OK, I can see how the genetic code could be rearranged to accomplish such a mind blower, - but by random mutation and natural selection? Not gonna happen, and that’s just math, not belief.
If the whale actually happened as you say (and it might have), I’d take That as proof of ID.

Didn’t mean to meander into evolution but here we are.

I was really hot to see Ford v Ferrari but saw a rabidly negative review and lost interest. What did you think? Worth a look?

Observations and assumptions and then hypotheses , then tested with evidence create theories in science. What weve got are theories with lots of evidence to support the whale story (for example) and NONE which refutes.

You can argue about the "Showing of intelligence" but you really have not a thread of evidence to support the story.

The Ford v Ferrari movie was something I think youd like because the cars are actually characters. Remember when the Turbine Ford GT's were clening up the trcks? **** the plot. Gimme a car movie with good cars and Im like the kids who go to all the CGI movies most of which hve no story worthy of mention.
I liked it a lot.

Have you tried the 1974 version of Gone in 60 Seconds?

The movie features a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach One with a 351 Cobra-Jet (Q Code) small block, and no plot.

Well there is the bare minimum of a plot I guess. But the only point of the plot is to set up the car chase. The entire movie is the car chase.

I recommend the modern restored version. The original features background music that may have sounded OK in 1974, but did not age well. The modern restored version strips the dopey music, leaving the sound of the engine the as main soundtrack of the movie.

Ford vs Ferrari was excellent. I thought Bale turned in a tremendous performance.

Really... This is now another Creationism thread?

How boring.

I can't speak for others, but I'm talking about car chase movies.

Although... perhaps that counts as a form of religion.

I love the Penn and Teller TV series "Bullshit!" where they debunk a bunch of wildly held beliefs in their trademark cynical (and entertaining way)

They have a kid (looks about 9) eat a big lunch and then push him into a swimming pool to see if he drowns (spoiler, he doesn't). That was one myth that I never questioned.

well, youve voted in on the subject. I rather enjoy hearing what a Creationist /IDer has to say regarding science. They demand stuff from science that they dont ever require within their belief system.

yep. Didnt you like it the way that the whole thing was documented?

Id seen the original of the "GI60..." movies. It was ok but the Ford/Ferrari movie was a historical occurrence when gas turbines were the next phase.

You guys always have to tag on the 'Creationist' label when anyone questions your pet theory. (cause you think it’s a synonym for 'nut job').
Either of you got a scientific rebuttal or is hurling insults all you got to defend your belief system.

All I demand from mine is that it make coherent sense. From a scientific standpoint, Small land mammal to whale by 'natural evolution' does not.

Evolution as an explanation for what we observe only makes sense if you assume it up front and force fit your pile of bones to it. Otherwise it’s so much 'poofism' as one of you believers call it.

I have to go watch Ford v Ferrari now.

All my discussions with you have been bolstered with plenty of scientific exidence. You merely deny it. Why should anyone continue the discussion. Youve failed to ingest and even consider my dicussion about the vience in whalw wvolution (That which you lik to poo poo).
I can unerstand your positiongood scientific evidence threaten your belief system (Youve been generous enough to share your beliefs and not deny them).

The way you want to hve evolution evidenced is to see one fossil evolving into another. IT JUST DOESNT WORK THAT WAY. Tak whales as an example
There may be several dozen species that have proto-Whale features and only one or two are even fossilized during any subsequent geologic priod. NO scientist has ever said that Pakicetus and Ambulocetus are direct descendents. BOTH hve a feature or two that are unique to ALL CETACEANS. Direct common ancestors may not even fossilize. Paki and AMbulo.. have features that are preserved in the next level proto cetaceans (AND the common features draw closer and closer). Also, all these derived features fit nicely into more specialized environments qnd later and later geological epochs.

Time, shape, environment, speciation. ALL the information fits.AND on top of that, we now see that genetic information of far related species(like a hyrax and an elephant) are derived, because the genomes carry the same info at the same loci.
Also, one of your points about "macro evolution is wrong because we now have genomes from Columbian Mammut and Wooly mammut and a late Mastodon and these genomes qre quite derived and highly related to todays elephants

You agree that your going to have to expand your definition of "macro evolution"?? After all, when Mayr oined the phrses macro and mico, it was merely a distinction set of terms with which biology could list subspeciation features and and higher features. (He never figured that the Cretion/IDers who, backed into a corner of belief , would use this as a KEYSTONE of your argument that evolution was either not happning or was controlled by a GOD.

Well, since modern elephants an mammoth and mastodons are in totally different GENERA, that sorta smooshes yer argument that "I believe in micro but there is no macro"

OF course, you could say that mammoths and elephnts are unrelated totally and a GOD just went and created each of them when he felt like it.

OH yeh, from the Penn State Guys , Mammoths and elephants are pretty much the same genome. So in that respwct theyre Kinda like Australopithecus and Homo(Except we dont have any genomeal material from australopithecenes because , probably, we dont have any frozen samples like we do mastodons and Mammoth)

Guess I should clear up where I stand on micro and macro evolution.

In the way that you mean them, I don’t believe in either. I do believe in mutation. In extremely limited cases, Mutation can cause a minor change that has some plausible functional changes to a microbe (as in the ability to break down a different kind of sugar). Most of the time it just kills the buggers.

At the 'macro' scale, mutation virtually always results in a birth defect or cancer. In one of the few actual proven cases of 'evolution' to the 'up side' it was recently discovered that Koi goldfish are actually carp with a genetically damaged gene. Makes sense. But a carp will never plausibly become a deer by the mechanisms you claim.

I’d have to ask a fish if that is a plus or not.

I assume by 'my beliefs' you were referring to theological beliefs. Yes, I have shared them, but not in the same argument. That’s a different thing but I’m always willing If you are.

If you wanted to build an elephant, would you start with your woolly mammoth design or would you say **** it, I’m gonna start with a catfish.

you know, based upon the definition of biological evolution, you may want to rethink what youve just posted .

This discussion is off-topic. I started a new thread on creationism and science.

https://able2know.org/topic/544170-1