Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-04-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-04-2013 01:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Oh brother, when you fail you fail HARD. Let me google that for you.

https://www.google.com/#output=search&sc...20&bih=969


And are you seriously suggesting that there's no such thing as short plants?
The species you cited is projected from fossils and is an Okapi, not a giraffe strictly and per se. Nor are there intermediate giraffes with in-between necks.

Nor are their plants of shorter height that are the same plants that tall, fully necked giraffes currently eat! Non sequiturs.

And to the google again!

Palaeotragus, for the record, is the common ancestor of both Okapi and Giraffes.


Samotherium
https://www.google.com/#output=search&sc...20&bih=969
Giraffa Jumae
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_rn=9&gs..._qf.&cad=b


Too easy. The only reason that you don't see transitional fossils is because you refuse to even look at them. You're really no different from the fools at CreationWiki or AiG, you just choose slightly different ground to stand on when you launch your attack on science. The ground, however, is just as indefensible.


And your argument about the plants they ate is so naive and sophomoric that I think you must know it's wrong. The ancestors of giraffes ate grass and bushes and, when they could reach them, the more nutritious tree leaves. Over several million years animals with longer necks were selected for because they could eat more from the trees, and thus had better nutrition and a better chance of passing along their genes. There may also have been elements of sexual selection, although these are harder to determine from fossils.

Longer necks, however, also make it more difficult to eat grass, thus more nutrition had to be extracted from tree leaves. So the giraffe's digestive system evolved to become more efficient at digesting leaves, instead of grass or brush, become specialized to those types of plants only. The giraffe went from a generalist animal to a specialist animal.

So simple. Drinking Beverage

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Phaedrus's post
17-04-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-04-2013 10:48 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I asked for books, not more inductive reasoning...

I know you suggested books, and I've read several of them. But if you start from the point-of-view that the authors simply must be wrong, then what good would they do you? It's like quoting scripture to an atheist; the atheist needs a reason to believe the bible holds truth before scripture has any effect. So I think a book suggestion is wasted effort here.

Your problem is one of "essentialism"... when you view evolution, you think it's a mere adaptation to the environment that will disappear with time because it's a change from the "normal" or "standard" version of the animal. But there's literally no scientific evidence for that. What we call a "typical" rabbit (to use Richard Dawkins' example) is merely the middle of the bell curve for rabbits, from length of various body parts to size to color to habitat to diet. These factors all change over time, like the growing life-span of the "typical" human has.

I know that you feel you must believe that long-term evolution can't be right, and so you'll continue to find ways to disprove it. And I know you think that you're reading the evidence and forming a conclusion rather than the other way around, but don't you see that science has an explanation of fossils? Fossils are something that the apologist must excuse... they don't make your case stronger. The discovery of dinosaur bones made sense from our understanding of evolution, but made Genesis a lot less believable. The immune system and new strains of disease are so clear when you understand evolution, but the bible doesn't enhance our understanding of these even slightly. Evolution is the tool for us to understand biology. The bible is your excuse to remain ignorant of how biology works.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Starcrash's post
18-04-2013, 12:00 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-04-2013 01:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Fossils are only part of the evidence and aren't even necessary.

You have a bit of reading to do.

Try Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne to start with.

Jerry Coyne, PhD is an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago.

Found a few talks by Coyne on Youtube, thanks for mentioning him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqGX08Og4CE

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 12:12 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
platypus


/thread



Tongue

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 07:54 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:I know that you feel you must believe that long-term evolution can't be right, and so you'll continue to find ways to disprove it. And I know you think that you're reading the evidence and forming a conclusion rather than the other way around, but don't you see that science has an explanation of fossils? Fossils are something that the apologist must excuse... they don't make your case stronger. The discovery of dinosaur bones made sense from our understanding of evolution, but made Genesis a lot less believable. The immune system and new strains of disease are so clear when you understand evolution, but the bible doesn't enhance our understanding of these even slightly. Evolution is the tool for us to understand biology. The bible is your excuse to remain ignorant of how biology works.
Gosh, thanks for telling me I'm a hopeless mess who is incapable of "evolving" opinions on matters of science as opposed to faith.

If you take my posts at face value, I'm seeking a book(s) (and it sounds like some quality ones have been recommended) that doesn't push the obvious fallacy that small changes that would create a new specie become these gigantic, complex genetic changes that make a mutant grow wings for some random reason when it is happy on the ground with the rest of us and etc.

You people push empirical evidence down Theists throats daily. How dare you criticize me as closed minded when most of you patently refuse to give ANY empirical evidence for macroevolution other than "we assume small changes over time become big changes". Really? Look at a human government lately? Smile

I'm going to read the books on genetics and statistics and get back with y'all. I will be out of town next week and away from a PC. It doesn't mean I've turned tail and run and I look forward to reading and learning more about macroevolution when I return.

And I'm sorry but fully formed life whether with us now or in the fossil record that shows similarities in design does not demonstrate how they grew new organs, tissues and systems over time. There is not one insect growing a seventh leg or an arthropod growing a ninth leg. There are no humans growing new nostrils to sniff pollution (or liberalism). The 200 vestigial organs I formally had are now recognized to maybe be my appendix, tonsils and wisdom teeth, all of which are eminently debatable.

You're lucky I'm interested in reading an evolution textbook since it's been many years and despite the constant ad homs from you and others.

I've noticed that y'all love to play the "give empirical evidence for God or shut up!" card. I'm a Christian, so although I'm tempted I won't say "Empirical evidence for macroevolution or shut up!" although I have a chance to get proof of God to you on another thread that YOU have taken on 25 tangents!

I'll say this though, you (people) are absolutely lying when insisting Linnean systems "prove" macroevolution. Links have changed for decades including much controversy about our ancestor apes' ancestors! I can just as easily draw lines between M&Ms plain and peanut and show you how they "evolved" and weren't designed.

Christians have 100 pieces of empirical evidence for your evidence for macroevolution! Not hard since you have none... I'm interested, however, in knowing what the truth is (my main reason for converting above even Heaven and Hell) so I'll keep you posted.

Feel free to make more book recommendations that you think are rich in empirical evidence and low on assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Drinking Beverage

Don't mind the paleontologist who hasn't been responded to.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
18-04-2013, 09:18 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(17-04-2013 01:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(17-04-2013 01:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The species you cited is projected from fossils and is an Okapi, not a giraffe strictly and per se. Nor are there intermediate giraffes with in-between necks.

Nor are their plants of shorter height that are the same plants that tall, fully necked giraffes currently eat! Non sequiturs.

What do you know of Linnean classification and the assignment of organisms to species?

Ooh ooh, I know! Smartass
You see there's this picture of a tree with branches and I think its an oak but could be a Cherry tree...umm. And caterpillars and other types of orgasms live on it.
The End.

TBD I give you props for trying... I really do. I've been on archeological and fossil digs that weren't as hard as PJ's head.

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
18-04-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(18-04-2013 09:18 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(17-04-2013 01:40 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What do you know of Linnean classification and the assignment of organisms to species?

Ooh ooh, I know! Smartass
You see there's this picture of a tree with branches and I think its an oak but could be a Cherry tree...umm. And caterpillars and other types of orgasms live on it.
The End.

TBD I give you props for trying... I really do. I've been on archeological and fossil digs that weren't as hard as PJ's head.

Haven't tried anything yet.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 11:02 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
Quote:Don't mind the paleontologist who hasn't been responded to.
Um, the one who put me on ignore last month?

You don't get it--there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who group up with shifting cladistics through the years. For every two species you can show me with your imaginary links, I can ask why there aren't hundreds or thousands of fossils showing the in-between steps with characteristics from each specie.

One more time--in Photoshop if you want to make red blend to blue, you choose a number of steps, say "10" and then you'll see a rainbow of 10 red-to-blue shades in between in the intervening space.

You're confusing "transitory forms" with "fully formed, distinct and different forms."

M&Ms plain version are remarkably similar in and outside to peanut M&Ms. But each was designed and made, not randomly produced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Book Recommendation for PleaseJesus
(18-04-2013 11:02 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Don't mind the paleontologist who hasn't been responded to.
Um, the one who put me on ignore last month?

You don't get it--there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who group up with shifting cladistics through the years. For every two species you can show me with your imaginary links, I can ask why there aren't hundreds or thousands of fossils showing the in-between steps with characteristics from each specie.

One more time--in Photoshop if you want to make red blend to blue, you choose a number of steps, say "10" and then you'll see a rainbow of 10 red-to-blue shades in between in the intervening space.

You're confusing "transitory forms" with "fully formed, distinct and different forms."

M&Ms plain version are remarkably similar in and outside to peanut M&Ms. But each was designed and made, not randomly produced.

Answer the second question I presented to you first.

What do you know of Linnean classification and the assignment of an organism to species?

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: