The Argument Clinic

[Meerkat_SK5]

@Gisteron

I think doing this is grossly disrespectful, though, contemptuous perhaps, as @Puck_Mendelssohn put it, and announcing that you would do this in no way serves to infuse any grace into it, especially not if you go on to almost never mark yourself a distinction between your words and the bot’s.

I don’t get the point of doing that especially if you acknowledge that it is not plagiarism. What is the difference between paraphrasing creative work from someone else vs inputting creative content into a bot and getting a paraphrased version of my content?

@Gisteron

What you cannot do, however, is concede any such incompetence (nor have it conclusively demonstrated to your own and everyone else’s satisfaction by, say, a test on a topic you implicitly claim some understandings of the basics of - just saying).

No, I have done this mean times actually. In fact, long before you came on here, I said to everyone that…

At some point, I added the introduction to help reviewers adequately critique my case.
This means that I never pretended to be an expert this field nor do I have a desire to be one. You either did not care to read this or did not fully absorb it into your brain. For this reason, I don’t care whether I make mistakes or not but I care about getting the mistakes right. Possible experiment to test for a "Divine" intelligent designer - #73 by Meerkat_SK5

I am all about getting things right NOT trying to be right.

@Michael_Okoko

Of course, the labels “mammals”, “reptiles”, and “birds” are subjective, but the FEATURES that make the organisms what they are aren’t subjective. Those features put them into a beautiful nested hierarchy. I don’t believe you are that dumb to not understand this?

Correct and those features were first interpretated to mean that they came from a common archetype for all vertebrates before Darwin proposed a common ancestor. The difference is that the common archetype/design theory can be rigourously tested and there is independent evidence for it.

@RonSewell

Exactly. You can still recognize them as belonging with mammals, reptiles, and birds, despite adaptations to various ecological niches. That is due to ancestry.

And you guys can’t test this without assuming it.to be true.

@John_Harshman

If somebody else wrote it, even if that somebody isn’t really a somebody, that’s the definition of plagiarism. Even if he announces that he’s going to do it.

Again, it creates original content based on the input it receives.

In other words, It does not reproduce or use any previously published works or ideas, and the responses are generated based on the specific context of the question asked.

So it is not the definition of plagiarism even if this somebody was a human.

@John_Harshman

There seems no reason to reply to you. Is that even you talking?

I think I might agree with you but for different reasons. I don’t see how there is anything else to respond to since I conceded that we can’t confirm yet whether the two pandas are created kinds. In fact, we can even suspect them to be created kinds yet like we can with the horse kind.

Moreover, I gave you a possible model for nested hierarchies of species from a common design perspective. Unless you can provide some reason why modular principles cannot be applied to species…

There does not seem to be anything else to discuss further.

@Roy

Stick a pin in one of your posts and you’ll find somewhere. For one thing, it’s highly unlikely that Owen’s theory predicted anything about DNA coding redundancy, transposons, or endogenous retroviruses.

Owen advocated for saltations and separate creation. So we would anticipate a mechanism that could produce the same effect, which would be HGT.

HGT produces all those things you mentioned.

@Roy

But the first thing you’re mistaken about is that you think I’ll believe you when you only say you’ve read something.

Alright then, I will show you that I did read it by showing you the only two instances where common descent can be tested:

Intermediate and transitional forms

All fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms. Similarly, there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human. It directly follows that if there is a unique universal phylogeny, then all organisms, both past and present, fit in that phylogeny uniquely.

Independent determination of the historical phylogeny

If there is one historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991; Zuckerkandl and Pauling 1965). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 (talkorigins.org)

Keep in mind, the only reason these would be examples of how we can test common descent is because common design does not predict the same thing. That’s it.

Nevertheless, these testable predictions have been disconifrmed. Moreover, we still have to assume common descent is true in order to make the predictions in the first place.