Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant

Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:51 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message
<6902010f-dcb0-400f-9408-24070d931...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> writes





OnJan12, 9:41 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
OnJan11, 10:01 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Evopeach wrote:
OnJan11, 3:59 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
OnJan11, 3:44 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OnJan11, 2:07 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OnJan11,10:13 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OnJan11, 9:01 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
chris thompson wrote:
[snip]
The funny/sad thing is that even though the reference was pretty
obscure, he's too insecure to admit he didn't know it.
"Yes, obscure it was! And obscure also is this!"
The real irony comes from his attempts to establish himself
as a scholar
of the church, despite his not getting the reference.
So the precise understanding appeared on my screen by magic ...I know
it was a saltation event where it just appeared as a macro
evolutionary event from Internet explorer's evolutionary search
algorithm.
1900 plus posts from 83 opponents all combining their intellect to
debate me and still getting their *** handed to them continually.
Maybe it's my IQ divided by their average IQ ......seems reasonable.
You're so manly! Now tell us about your penis size so we can all gasp
in amazement!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Naw, I guarantee its not as big as that friendly horse in your barn.
Had a blood test lately?
How do you know it's friendly?
Are horses in the same baramin as burros? Donkeys? Jackasses? Zebras?
Mules?
In reality, it's easy to show
that Galliformes all belong to the same holobaramin, and that
Anseriformes (ducks)belong to that one too, and that other birds do
too.
This is true, so I imagine that you didn't mean to state that as your
actual opinion. Is there an attribution problem?
This from a dummy that thinks all galliforms and all birds and ducks
can be easily shown to be in the same holobaramin although the
literature is replete with papers whose title and abstracts state
otherwise.
Sorry, what literature is that? If you mean the creationist literature,
you may be right. But certainly not the scientific literature. I can
assure you from personal knowledge (this is what I do, after all) that
all birds are in the same holobaramin, and that is indeed easy to show.
What a goofball.
If he's such a goofball, shouldn't you be able to provide good evidence
that all birds are not in the same holobaramin? I would be interested to
know what that evidence might be.
Then you didn't examine the titles of the papers I included.
But I did, and I'm at a loss to figure out what you think they mean, if
you're interpreting it as supporting your views. They have nothing to do
with what you think they do.
http://www.answers.com/topic/galliformes-1?cat=technology
There are two tribes: the Craci (the megapodes, chachalacas, guans,
and curassows) and the Phasiani (the turkeys, grouse, New World
quails, pheasants, partridges, and guinea fowls). The two are distant
in evolutionary terms, and no examples are known of a bird from one
tribe hybridizing with one from the other. They are distinguished by
the hallux, the hind toe, which in the Craci is in line with the other
toes, but in the Phasiani is above the others.
Note that this reference contradicts your baraminological references, by
the way, in that the undergraduate thesis concluded that the two
holobaramins were megapodes and cracids + phasianoids, thus splitting Craci.
The term "tribe" is misused here, if it's intended in a technical sense.
Phasiani and Craci are in fact traditional suborders. They are not real
groups, because Craci as described here consists of megapodes and
cracids, and cracids are more closely related to Phasiani than to
megapodes. I can give you many references for this if you like. Or you
could look at the references on the appropriate page at tolweb.org.
However, if you think "distant in evolutionary terms" means "different
holobaramins", you are quite mistaken. This does nothing to support your
claims.
The Class Aves (birds) is generally divided into two main groups - the
Palaeognathae and the Neognathae. Paleognathous birds are the
flightless ratites and the tinamous, while Neognathae include all
other extant birds (more than 9,000 species). This opinion has
prevailed for more than a century and is primarily based on
morphological studies of the avian bony palate.
Yes, and it's correct. It's been confirmed over and over by molecular
and more complete morphological sampling. But what's your point? This is
straight evolutionary biology. Life is divided into groups at all
levels. None of them are holobaramins. Note that Neognathae includes
Galliformes. If Neognathae is a holobaramin, Galliformes, or subgroups
thereof, are not holobaramins. Groups within groups is a consequence of
common descent.
Again, nothing you cite from the mainstream literature or the web
supports your claims, except your baraminological references, and I have
briefly explained what makes them invalid.
In the future, if you quote something from the web, could you please
devote at least a couple of sentences to explaining *why* you think it
supports your claims? Neither of these quotes has anything to do with
your claims.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Peer reviewed, non-creationist , evo site.
Immunoglobulins of the non-galliform birds: Antibody expression
and ...
This abstracts discusses Immunoglobulins of the non-galliform birds:
Antibody expression and repertoire in the duck. ... on non-galliform
birds are largely ...
www.gallusimmunotech.com/papers/paper476.htm- 13k - Cached
Let's explain non-galliform birds as in say ducks which are not
gallliform among others thus all birds are not galliform and are not
interbreeding and are not therefore in the same holobaramin.
That "explanation" is fallacious; it is a non-sequitur. It does not
follow from ducks being non-galliform birds that they do not share a
common ancestor with galliform birds. It does not follow from the
absence of recorded hybrids between anseriform and galliform birds that
they do not share a common ancestor. It does not even follow from the
combination of the two facts that they do not share a common ancestor.



Now stick it in your ear.
I know it's like "officer that picture on my drivers license is not me
its a countrerfeit slipped into my wallet by a creationist".
--
alias Ernest Major- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're a real clown, but holobaramin members have morphological
similarites, close homologies, interbreed, have viable hybrids, lie in
a narrow phylogeny, and the study said no and the literature says no
unless you have a notion that ducks and wrens routinely have sex.

Not even baraminologists claim all this. You need to do more reading. Lack of interbreeding does not prevent two species from being in the same holobaramin, even according to your boy Wood. Ducks and chickens do have morphological similarities and close homologies. I don't know what sort of phylogeny is narrow, but they do lie in a single phylogeny.

What study said no about what? All you have shown is that ducks are not galliforms, which nobody had claimed. However, ducks and chickens are both members of Galloanserae, for which we have conclusive evidence. Ducks, chickens, and wrens are all members of Neognathae, for which we also have conclusive evidence. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence against the existence of these groups. You have not even been able to figure out what form such evidence might take. Your evidence seems to be only lack of interbreeding, and I can't repeat enough that not even baraminologists accept this as evidence that two species are in different holobaramins.

.

Loading