65
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: +
Really the last word from me
::::::::::: But although I think we've reached some common ground, we haven't actually agreed on what the wording should be. The current wording that says that the different creatures ''are'' related is unacceptable, as it presumes the evolutionary view to be true (and by the way, your description ("... the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous...") appears to presume that creatures ''are'' related, and it's just a matter of working out ''which'' relationship is the correct one. As such, it doesn't show that they ''are'' related). So do you want to propose better wording, or shall we revert to what was there, which did at least ''suggest'' that they were similar ''insofar as the molecular and morphological evidence is concerned''?
::::::::::: But although I think we've reached some common ground, we haven't actually agreed on what the wording should be. The current wording that says that the different creatures ''are'' related is unacceptable, as it presumes the evolutionary view to be true (and by the way, your description ("... the branching pattern described is the most parsimonous...") appears to presume that creatures ''are'' related, and it's just a matter of working out ''which'' relationship is the correct one. As such, it doesn't show that they ''are'' related). So do you want to propose better wording, or shall we revert to what was there, which did at least ''suggest'' that they were similar ''insofar as the molecular and morphological evidence is concerned''?
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::: Well, it's more of a case of saying is it more likely that sea cows where created more or less as they are with exactly bones in their limbs as elephants, only creatly reduced in size and used for a completely different purpose, or could they be descended from a creature that already had these limb bones and in one lineage they've been retooled for swimming and in the other for holding a massive animal. It's even more ridiculous for the cited paper which is talking about retroposons - selfish DNA elements that also support a tree like structure. If you and your sister have a selfish gene inserted in the same location of the genome would you say it was more likely that you inherited from one of your parents or you both got it ''de novo''? That's before we even start talking about methadological naturalism. This page shouldn't be--[[User:Igor nz|Igor nz]] 18:43, 27 March 2008 (EDT)a debate about universal common descent, a scientific fact that any theory of evolution needs to explain, I can see that this really is a waste of time. The admins here are so wedded to their views that there is no way reasoned debate will change them.