Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Yes, I'm sure it was a very comprehensive study . . . too bad it goes about it ass-backward, by defining the conclusion they want to prove, and THEN selecting the proof to go with it.
How did you reach that conclusion?
I read the article. And then I used logic.
Look at my quote from the article: "None of this comes from a fossil of the creature itself. Instead, the predictions are based on 80 of its descendants . . ."
So okay. They have no fossil, no actual evidence that there ever WAS such a creature, other than their own belief that this is how things work, therefore such a creature MUST have existed. And then they move from that assumption right on to, "So now that there must have been such a creature, what did it look like?"
They defined their foregone conclusion - There was a creature who was the common ancestor of all these animals.
Then they selected the proof to go with it - Predictions based on 80 animals they decided had had a common ancestor, for whom there is no actual, hard evidence like a fossil.
I read the article and reached the opposite conclusion. They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal. As far as the conclusion a common ancestor existed, that is straight out of evolutionary theory.
Anyway, enough of this debate.
I just heard, "I can't really refute you, so never mind."
Run along.
There is nothing to refute. I expressed my opposite opinion. You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions. That is what this group did. You appear to be a person that doesn't believe in evolution so I see no need in going any further.
What happened to "enough of this debate"?
Oh, I see. You wanted to say your piece and flounce off with the last word. And you're going to keep throwing in ONE MORE THING and "NOW we're done" until I let you have it.
Ain't gonna happen.
Your "opposite opinion" was exactly the same thing I said, just prefaced with "I disagree".
"They compiled a large database of characteristics and used them to reach their conclusion about the nature of the ancestor animal."
Yeah, like I said, they decided there was an ancestor animal, and THEN they set about selecting data that supported the conclusion they'd made. At no point in time have you OR the people in your little study EVER said, "We found evidence, and concluded that there was an ancestor animal based on it".
"You seem to be taking a jab at the general process of science itself - collect data, study it, reach conclusions, make predictions." No, I'm taking a jab at pseudo-science that does exactly the opposite: reach a conclusion, THEN collect data that agrees with it . . . which you yourself have admitted is exactly what they did.
This is now the second time you've said, "Debate over", but we both know that's based on "THIS IS MY OPINION and now I'm leaving so you can't answer." We'll see whether or not you actually think the debate isn't worth your time, or if you're just trying to win through shutting down any debate at all.