From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ed, I made some clarifications here. One little problem, perhaps not solvable, is that the reason given ID explaining this is tautologic.--PalMDtalk 19:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There's also the problem that it uses the term "convergent evolution" without explaining it. Sounds like evolutionists, who already assume evolution must be true, couldn't account for it so they just gave it a name that fits their theory?
A bit like saying that those size 0 models who keep fainting on runways starve themselves because of anorexia.

Convergent evolution

Convergent evolution is a theory used by scientists to explain how animals that have similar lifestyles, although otherwise unconnected, may develop striking resemblances to one another, by having to adapt to similar environments.

Where's the explanation? It's like saying my TV picture appears because of TV reception.

What is reception? What is received? How does it get to my TV? What made it? --Ed Poor 20:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It says that "these structures are useful and appear time and time again int he animal kingdom in ways that help the survivability of that species." --Mtur 20:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That's not a theory. That's merely an observation. Like many mollusks have shells. This makes their soft inner bodies hard for fish to swallow.

An explanation would say (1) why these shells came into being, i.e., how species of mollusks with shells appeared on earth; and (2) why lots of other animals have shells or "bony appendages". Am I missing something too obvious for words here? --Ed Poor 20:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is a supporting observation to natural selection. It is not a theory on its own. It is not trying to explain anything. --Mtur 20:29, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not simply a matter of faith. This is not to discount the ID folks, but Evo does have good evidence, both morphological and genetic, and good, testable, falsifiable reasoning (which ID does is tautological). Populations subjected to similar selective pressures sometimes develop similar (very) structures. Ill dig you up some good stuff on that if you wish.--PalMDtalk 20:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Some links that give background, set a basis:

This is not simply "Evodidit"PalMDtalk 20:37, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

BTW, im not sure Darwin spoke much of convergence, but dont quote me on that...i think it is a more modern concept.--PalMDtalk 20:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

This gets into the question of Evidence for macroevolution, if I may use the term Macroevolution. By which I mean appearance of new kinds which can't breed with old kinds, i.e., species. --Ed Poor 20:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ed,please let me know if you need me to give you a clearer explanation here. Some of the science is quite technical, some over my head, but the basic concepts I have down fairly well and Id be happy to help you with some of the ontologic questions you have. Evo does not use teleology in its explanations, so it is tough for ID minded folks sometimes...not a criticism, just different people come from different mindsets.--PalMDtalk 20:45, 30 March 2007 (EDT) Id also be happy to explain speciation to you.

First explain farming to me. "What's a crop?" (from Field of Dreams) --Ed Poor 20:52, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you could be more specific...parables aren't my speciality.PalMDtalk 20:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Protected... figures.

Conservative, "evolutionary" science = MAINSTREAM science. Change it to say so.
Also, can you engage in actual analysis, or is quote mining all you've got?-AmesGyo!

Already one typo "the the" and bad sentence structure "assert assert"! That was fast.-AmesGyo! 21:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Order of the page

It starts with Creationist scientist assert the the following: the homology argument is not a legitimate argument for the evolutionary view; the homology argument has problems; and homology is best explained by creation according to a common plan. but does not explain what homology is until half way down the page. Please present the statement and examples of what is being argued before any attempt to criticize it. --Mtur 21:23, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 21:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Like to work alone?

Conservative, hey there! I see you prefer people to STAY OUT while you're working there. Not a good idea as this is a wiki and a wiki works best when a lot of peole TALK about changes to the articles and THEN make changes based on those discussions. Crackertalk 22:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Once upon a time..

there was an interesting topic started by EdPoor, joined in discussion by me, then hijacked by the forces of ignorancee...I cant even look at this article anymore.--PalMDtalk 22:07, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

But what is homology?

The first version of this article had a nice definition of homology, and now it has been reduced to one sentence. Now when I read the refutation section it doesn't mean anything to me because I don't know anything about homology. To make your invalidity argument stronger you should do a better job of explaining the thing you are arguing against in the first place. HelpJazz 12:39, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

If you literally mean the first version[1], that wasn't actually describing homology. This page started life as Convergent evolution (which is what the first version was describing) but for some reason had the description removed and the article renamed to Common characteristics of animals and gradually altered to talk about homology. Philip J. Rayment 05:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
Ah, I see what happened there. Walking through the difs gets messed up when pages get moved. At any rate, I think that a description of the thing the article is named after should be longer and more important to an article than a refutation of the thing the article is named after, no? HelpJazz 00:54, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, although I think the present description does adequately describe what it is, albeit briefly, there should be more written about it. Philip J. Rayment 10:14, 14 September 2008 (EDT)