Nobody answered this because it is a stupid question.
Nobody is “saying” this.
What we are saying is that:
(i) is different from what you implied they are “saying”, and (ii) is a completely ignorant claim.
2 Likes
Well, just to be clear, we do not argue that dogs will evolve into cats, that dogs will evolve into fish, that dogs will evolve into lizards, that cats will evolve into dogs, nor that lizards will evolve into dogs, nor that any of these things have ever happened. All of which are implied by your statement “can, will, and did”. However, we do argue that fish evolved into dogs, which are a more specialized type of fish (technically speaking). I don’t see what’s so ridiculous about this statement. You’re just making an argument from personal incredulity.
In other news… we’ve reached our 1000th post on this pointless thread! 
3 Likes
That’s not the same argument… at all. You would find exactly no one who would agree that is the same argument.
The notion of anything without prior assumptions tells me you are uninterested in science.
Do you not know what the word ‘suspect’ means in the context I used it? No, I’m not sure. I suspect. That’s why I said what I said and not something else. I’m not interested in reading through your unbelievably long and bloviating screeds to guess which passage you think says the thing you claim you said.
That’s why I suggested you quote it. Are you unable?
1 Like
Tim gets the door prize!
1 Like
No I don’t – @misterme987 themselves do: this post is #1000. 
1 Like
Really? Huh, when I look at the list of posts, it tells me that this post by Meerkat is the 1000th. Solving this mystery would be much more interesting than continuing the pointless discussion with Meerkat. 
1 Like
Yes, but if you go into the URL, you will find: “https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-argument-clinic/15561/1015” – indicating that it’s the 1015th post.
1 Like
It does not matter whether it was specifically claimed that dogs produced reptiles or cats produced fishes.
This was the prevailing understanding of transmutation back then:
"I never asserted that creation (or the appearance of a new or modified fauna) was not by law. But by what law? Not, I may say, of natural transmutation- not by turning fishes into reptiles, whales into pachyderms, or monkeys into men, in the way of natural generation, but by a higher law, of which we may reach the conception hereafter, as you have reached the conception of an archetypal form. But that conception does not mutilate (it rather magnifies and consolidates) our conceptions of final causes and of a Creator. " page 96
The difference is that you are making an extraordinary claim that has not been confirmed yet.
Assuming that dogs will produce dogs in the future is an ordinary claim.
@Dan_Eastwood is actually the one responsible for this you know. It is apparently now his go-to redirect thread for any discussion he deems to be unworthy of a separate thread.
It’s not an extraordinary claim to anyone familiar with high school biology.
Yeah, nah. Quote the specific bit for the specific thing you claimed. Not a screed.
3 Likes
That is in fact what common ancestry predicts, based on the law of monophyly. Dogs will always be dogs, just evolving to be more specialized. Please educate yourself on what evolutionary theory is before trying to ‘debunk’ it.
2 Likes
It always was a thread for that purpose – hence the reference in the thread’s title to a comedy sketch about pointless repetitive arguments. For this reason your overly-repetitive advocacy of your vacuous and incoherent “theory and model” fits this thread’s purpose perfectly. It is just another pointless argument sent here to molder and (hopefully) die.
1 Like
It’s also why the best reply to Meer’s posts is a quick ‘No it isn’t!’
2 Likes
No it isn’t (the best reply).
They say that comedy is tragedy plus time, and this thread has certainly gone on long enough.
2 Likes
I think the difference is between “1000th post made in this thread” and “1000th post kept in this thread” – the URL records the former (so as to keep post-numbering fixed, so that links don’t change when posts are moved/removed) and the discourse software records the latter.
I am not suggesting that claiming fish eventually produced dogs is irrational or inconceivable. The part that makes it extraordinary is that there is no independent evidence for it.
Evidence of common designer:
We put forward a number of new insights including the surprising one that the structure of quantum field theory, which we introduced in our modeling scheme in Aerts (2007b), plays an essential role. This allowed us to propose a specific hypothesis about the structure of human thought, viz. the hypothesis that we can identify within human thought a superposition of two layers whose structure follows from our quantum-based model of a large set of experimental data on the combination of concepts (Hampton, 1988a, Hampton, 1988b). The layered structure of human thought is directly related to the quantum field structure of our scheme, more specifically to the use of Fock space in our modeling of these data (Aerts, 2007a, Aerts, 2007b). We will illustrate these findings by working out in detail a relatively simple and concrete mathematical quantum model for this large collection of experimental data of Hampton, 1988a, Hampton, 1988b.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022249609000558?via%3Dihub
Evidence of common design:
"Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) enables organisms to acquire pre-existing adaptive characters from other organisms, regardless of phylogenetic distance. Thus, instead of genetic traits within lineages always emerging gradually through successive mutations and selection, evolution is accelerated as a parallel process, where inventions made in different lineages can come together in a single cell through HGT.
…In addition to sharing metabolic capabilities between unrelated organisms, HGT also plays an important role in creating new functional roles for existing proteins by assembling new metabolic pathways.
…HGT depends upon the universality of the genetic code. Every known organism uses the same twenty amino acids (the infrequent usage of an additional two, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine, notwithstanding), and with few exceptions these are decoded by tRNA in the same way… The presence of HGT early in the evolution of life before the time of LUCA is also supported by the optimality of the genetic code itself, which likely depended upon extensive HGT to become established [30].
Ancient horizontal gene transfer and the last common ancestors | BMC Ecology and Evolution | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)
I am not trying to debunk Darwin’s theory. I am trying to show how Owen’s theory is a better explanation.
If that were the case, he would have done the same thing for Bill’s argument and he did not:
Split this topic 1 day ago
4 posts were merged into an existing topic: Comments on Bill’s math class
Phylogenetics is the evidence that dogs are fish (if using a cladistic definition of fish).
That is in absolutely no way evidence of any designer, much less a common designer. So not supportive of your premise.
HGT isn’t evidence of common design, because it’s… not evidence of design at all. So not supportive of your premise.
As expected, you’ve completely failed to provide anything even in the direction of supporting your claim. Swing and a miss.
2 Likes
No he wouldn’t. The difference being that this forum already has two threads devoted to BillCole’s sealioning: one to attempts to get him to provide mathematical support for his repeated claims, and a second devoted to more general discussion.
@Dan_Eastwood clearly set out the ‘dumping site’ rationale for this thread in his OP:
Presumably he did “have time” on this occasion to move Bill’s drek to its own, more specialised, dumping site.
1 Like
And round and round we go.
2 Likes
Is everybody now too dizzy to make their way off the merry-go-round?