@lemon-lime said
@wildgrass

We are working with multiple analogies here.

Analogies don't appear to be popular or well understood here. And to make matters worse I've thought of another one:

A city slicker is driving through farm country and says, "Look! There's a man hanging from a pole in that cornfield!"
He drives on for a few miles and says, "Look! There's a man han ...[text shortened]... evidence of his own eyes have proven this to be true.

Can you spot the error(s) in his reasoning?

None of your analogies have been useful in any meaningful way.

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence related to comparative anatomy, empirical evidence of natural selection, biogeography (i.e. the predictive patterning of species across continents, islands and habitats), maths modeling, molecular genetics, in addition to fossils of course.

Like, evidence for evolution is like if the dog ate my homework after I made copies.

@lemon-lime said
More than one scenario could account for evidence found at a crime scene, and fictional crime dramas often use this fact in order to make their stories more interesting and believable.
Do you believe evolutionists are not motivated to single out a scenario that best fits their narrative? If they are already primed to believe something (and they are) then what is th ...[text shortened]... e to stop them from gravitating towards a conclusion that best 'explains' what they already believe?

If they are already primed to believe something (and they are) then what is there to stop them from gravitating towards a conclusion that best 'explains' what they already believe?

Answer: Contradictory evidence.

Evolution does not have to be believed. It has been laid bare for all to see, as if God walked among us.

@wildgrass

Evolution does not have to be believed. It has been laid bare for all to see.

Do you mean like the Emperor and his new clothes? I'm having trouble following your logic.
And what does any of this have to do with a dog that eats fossils?

@wildgrass

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence

Well, duh! Who wants to look at an analogy that takes more than a hundred years to read?

@lemon-lime said
How do you determine if something is a transitional?

Why suddenly be hung up over the word 'transitional' and not, say, over the meaning of the word 'evolution' or 'mutation' or 'species' or 'dog' or 'different' or 'change'? If, say, an animal Y has characteristics between two other animal types X and Z and it existed while X existed (whether X STILL exists is irrelevant here) but before the first Z and all the other evidence points to it being an evolutionary link between X and Z i.e. indicating Y could have evolved from X and then Z evolved from Y (so X-->Y-->Z), then we say Y is probably (or 'definitely', depending on the strength of evidence) a 'transitional'. -any problems? I don't know how to make its meaning any more clear.

@humy

Why suddenly be hung up over the word 'transitional' and not, say, over the meaning of the word 'evolution' or 'mutation' or 'species' or 'dog' or 'different' or 'change'?

Why suddenly be hung up over the meaning of individual words and not, say, recognize how those words serve as a means for expressing ideas and concepts? Am I to assume those words all mean the same thing, or are able to (all by themselves) exclusively serve to support your argument but not mine?

And by the way, not all comparisons and abstractions are 'analogies'. If you want to use the word 'analogy' as a generic term referring to all comparisons and abstractions I'm okay with that. But if that's what we're doing here then why complain about 'bad' analogies?



are oranges bad apples?

@lemon-lime said
@humy
Am I to assume those words all mean the same thing, or are able to (all by themselves) exclusively serve to support your argument but not mine?

No.

@wildgrass said
None of your analogies have been useful in any meaningful way.

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence related to comparative anatomy, empirical evidence of natural selection, biogeography (i.e. the predictive patterning of species across continents, islands and habitats), maths modelin ...[text shortened]... s of course.

Like, evidence for evolution is like if the dog ate my homework after I made copies.

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence

I like good analogies too. Richard Dawkins description of climbing Mount Improbable is a good analogy.
However, if you take into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence it becomes increasingly clear that the thousands of (presumably) negotiable steps are themselves improbable. Each of those steps have become their own "Mount Improbable" because of what we now know. The analogy is still a good one, but it's been rendered useless because of (not in spite of) scientific advancement and gathered evidence.
What's the point of considering more than a hundred years of gathered evidence if you ignore the last 40 years?

@lemon-lime said

I actually like good analogies, but yours are all purposefully omitting more than a hundred years of gathered evidence

I like good analogies too. Richard Dawkins description of climbing Mount Improbable is a good analogy.
However, if you take into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence it becomes increasingly clear that the thousands of (pr ...[text shortened]... point of considering more than a hundred years of gathered evidence if you ignore the last 40 years?

To what degree have you "taken into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence"? Your knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level, let alone that of an expert in the field capable of judging recent advances in biology.

@KazetNagorra

To what degree have you "taken into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence"?

I was wondering the same about some of you 'experts' and your expert opinions. You and humy seem to share the same belief that non-agreement with all things evolution is equivalent to non-knowledge/education/experience.

@kazetnagorra said
To what degree have you "taken into account the past 40 or 50 years of gathered evidence"? Your knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level, let alone that of an expert in the field capable of judging recent advances in biology.

A prominent neurosurgeon was attacked by evolutionists for saying no one needs to study evolution to become a neurosurgeon.
So are you going to tell me a neurosurgeon's knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level?
That's like attacking a stone mason for saying no one needs to study physics and geology to become a stone mason.

Personal attacks like this don't enhance the evolutionist position, it weakens it.

@lemon-lime said
A prominent neurosurgeon was attacked by evolutionists for saying no one needs to study evolution to become a neurosurgeon.

Which 'evolutionists'? What are their names?
Which 'neurosurgeon'? What is his name?
When?
Where?
Can you provide evidence of this incident?
This sounds like an unlikely story.
Even if it is a true story, since it is obvious to us you don't need to know all about evolution to actually do neurosurgery, those 'evolutionists' are certainly not representative of us.
Either way, truth or lie, since we here don't insist you must study evolution theory in particular before you are allowed to become a neurosurgeon in particular, its straw man. To skillfully do operations on the brain, you just need to know how to do skillfully operations on the brain and, although you would need to know much about the structure of the brain to do that, you don't need to know how the brain structure evolved to be the way you know it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Sounds to me you are trying to attack evolution theory not by attacking the theory itself by attack the character of all people that accept evolution theory as scientific fact.

@humy said
Which 'evolutionists'? What are their names?
Which 'neurosurgeon'? What is his name?
When?
Where?
Can you provide evidence of this incident?
This sounds like an unlikely story.
Even if it is a true story, since it is obvious to us you don't need to know all about evolution to actually do neurosurgery, those 'evolutionists' are certainly not representative of us.
Either ...[text shortened]... theory itself by attack the character of all people that accept evolution theory as scientific fact.

Do you think when KN said "Your knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level" that wasn't a strawman?
In high school I was required to dissect a frog, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in a math or history or literature and writing class.

If you really want to know if any neurosurgeon actually said this, google "neurosurgeon evolution". But if you want to keep up the pretense of it being an unlikely story then you should probably think about quickly changing the subject. Or better yet, pretend the neurosurgeon's religion made him say it.

@lemon-lime said
A prominent neurosurgeon was attacked by evolutionists for saying no one needs to study evolution to become a neurosurgeon.
So are you going to tell me a neurosurgeon's knowledge of biology isn't even at the high school level?
That's like attacking a stone mason for saying no one needs to study physics and geology to become a stone mason.

Personal attacks like this don't enhance the evolutionist position, it weakens it.

Noting that you aren't an expert in biology is not a "personal attack."

The "evolutionist position" doesn't need "enhancing," it just needs to be taught, which is what high schools are supposed to do. Sadly, yours appears not to have been up to the task.

@humy

It wasn't an attack on evolution, it was a simple statement of fact. What are you defending?

like attacking a stone mason for saying no one needs to study physics and geology to become a stone mason.

Only a nincompoop would come running to the defense of physics and geology after a stone mason says he doesn't need to study either one of those to do his job.