Originally Posted by RAZD
Thanks CTD for another opportunity to demonstrate the difference between your world and the world of science.

Quote
And you like to misportray things. I copied and pasted your exact words. They're still there, naturally.
And the word "WILL" is still in those exact words. I bolded it last time so you could see it easier.
"Will match" doesn't mean "won't match". Neither does it mean "will be reinterpreted to match".

Quote
Quote
Now you effectively change it to "when all sides have reached a consensus" their results will match. Duh! It could not be otherwise. Do you predict such a day will ever come? Is such a prediction falsifiable?
No, because evidence doesn't reach a consensus: it is what it is, and it remains what it is without compromise. Reality doesn't play any favorites for any beliefs or ideas.
So your prediction is just a phony one thrown in to mock actual science? The data already exists, and it didn't match. Reinterpreting doesn't change that. And in the case of whales, the reinterpreting solution hasn't been accepted yet, either.

Quote
You confuse people with evidence. People can come to a consensus on what the evidence shows.
Your prediction (when we incorporate your new, non-obvious choice of meaning for the term 'will') relies upon people. Thus is a joke to try to pass it off.

Quote
No, what I am saying is that when all the evidence is in (or enough to piece together the true picture) for whale evolution that the phylogenies from DNA studies and the phylogenies from fossil homology and morphological studies will match, whether there is consensus among scientists or not.
You weren't even thinking about whales when you wrote that. You first tried to trick everyone into thinking the whale stories did match, when they didn't. Now you backpedal on your original prediction. Why? Because it fails in its original form.

It doesn't matter which compromise they agree to. If the data doesn't match the story, it doesn't match. If it matched any compromise, the deal'd be done. (Or do you imagine the "conspiracy" is too dishonest to support this conclusion?)

Quote
Quote
By the way, is this your own prediction, or do you have a source?
Again you mistake authority (people) for evidence and logic. It is more important to you WHO made this prediction than whether the prediction is logically derived from the theory of evolution.
So the stasis, which logically does not fit many "theories of evolution", shouldn't be there. Most "theories" of change do predict change, whether or not people choose to admit this.

Quote
The theory of evolution predicts that species are related by common ancestors.
Which ones? Okay, I could clarify, I suppose. And I know how folks hate it when that happens.

Which "theories" predict which "species" share common ancestors?

Quote
Quote
Your source admits it involves a new interpretation of fossils.
And yet, curiously, the fossils themselves did not change.
Duh! That's your whole problem. At least, if you mean for anyone to take your "prediction" even half seriously. But why should we take it any more seriously than you do yourself?

Quote
Quote
They have new "finds" which they say "support" the new interpretation. Now which came first, the DNA tree discrepancies, or the new story?
Curiously the "finds" are not imaginary, they are new objective evidence of reality, and this evidence invalidated the old view of relation to mesonychids. Strangely DNA cannot force fossils to grow in rock or to morph fossils into different forms. Sadly this seems to be what you are claiming happened.
That bears no resemblance to anything I've said. Please destroy this straw man before he joins the legion.

Quote
Of course if the DNA had matched the fossil tree first, you would have claimed that the geneticists had fudged their data instead, because you have convinced yourself of a conspiracy that does not exist.
Well, I suppose this fictional CTD might be an interesting character. Why don't you start a new thread & tell us all about him?

Quote
The fact that there are differences in the evidence, and that new evidence is what causes revision to the phylogeny shows that scientists are interested in the evidence and what it shows to be true, rather than in some conspiracy or cover up.
If that's what you think, then why do you keep bring up this "conspiracy"?

Quote
Quote
What's so curious about that? If I had made the claim, it would be curious.
Just that IF you were interested in invalidating evolution THEN this is what you would do.
Nonsense. Like I need advice from you on debunking...

Quote
Note that I have restored the full quote rather than just leave your quote-mine snippet and put in bold the relevant portion you seemed to have missed the first time.
Oh? Do you mean to say that removing unnecessary context is the same thing as quoting out-of-context? I didn't make the claim, so there's nothing curious at all about me not supporting it. That you assert this need means... it means you assert it.

Now if only Darwin (or even later evopushers) had only known... all they need to do to prove their fantasy once & for all is show that whales' DNA has any feature at all common with any other critters' DNA, my my! Why don't you be of value to the movement & notify Dawkins right away?

Quote
Quote
Then why is there no consensus? Are those evolutinists on the other side of the controversy just too stubborn to give up? What about the neutral, non-committal group? Are they just afraid, or (even worse) too blamed independent to be intimidated?
And this shows you the problems with assuming a conspiracy: if there were a conspiracy as you complain then none of this would be apparent.
That's a response, but not an answer. I do not recall complaining of any whale conspiracy, but what kind of authority am I on my own words? I don't even know what they are sometimes, before they're put in my mouth.

Quote
I'll make a prediction before reading your source:

That they all say whales evolved from condylarthra because of shared traits and that they all share traits with modern even-toed hoofed animals, like hippos, and that the differences will be minor compared to:
That's enough. The whole issue was that they're supposed to be related to hippos somehow! Of course you could predict that. We discussed this before, and everyone knows.

(And that's assuming you were honest and didn't look.)

Do you ever pass up any opportunity to insult peoples' intelligence?

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson