[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Nope. My link contains images of the actual site. You just picked a single footprint with cracks you could pretend were toes (while ignoring other cracks that clearly aren't toes).

Drawing toes where there are cracks in 3 out of 5 cases isn't scientific. It's drawing what you want to see.

There's not one with a tridactyl appearance, there are many, nearly all that aren't simply indistinct.





you can even look at the high resolution of your own image and see the three toe marks on most of the tracks. Odd that they'd all magically "crack" in the same way.

It's funny how you continually accuse others of the exact thing you are doing. Namely cherry picking a single track that you think supports your position. Unfortunately for you, it's analysis of ALL the tracks that shows they can't possibly be human.

There's a difference between your cartoons and mine. Maybe you can figure it out.

No, I think it's you that can't figure it out. You think The Flintstones is a reasonable representation of history.

Well, ignoring your irrational demands, sure:

Spoiler

So you went with the single ambiguous track/hole. There's still no clear impression of five toes there.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

There's not one with a tridactyl appearance, there are many, nearly all that aren't simply indistinct.

Yeah. Those are dino prints.

What you started with was a human print, one of only a few, and what you've done is drawn toes where there aren't any. you're pretending everything is a dino track and from the few tracks that look human, you've picked the one that best represents your explanation. But the erosion style you're pointing to exists where there are no toes. That is plainly obvious. The size of the prints indicates a vastly different creature and the impression of the smaller print atop the dino track is the clincher.

Here, see for yourself:

Spoiler

Or do you think there was only one thing walking around?

you can even look at the high resolution of your own image and see the three toe marks on most of the tracks. Odd that they'd all magically "crack" in the same way.

Strange. I see at least four human-looking toe-prints. Your eyes need checking.

It's funny how you continually accuse others of the exact thing you are doing. Namely cherry picking a single track that you think supports your position. Unfortunately for you, it's analysis of ALL the tracks that shows they can't possibly be human.

Yeah, if you analyse dino tracks, all you're going to see is dino tracks.

No, I think it's you that can't figure it out. You think The Flintstones is a reasonable representation of history.

Got anything rational to offer?

So you went with the single ambiguous track/hole. There's still no clear impression of five toes there.

Alate's eyes.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Yeah. Those are dino prints.

Okay those are closeup images of the same trackway you're claiming is made up of human prints below.

What you started with was a human print, one of only a few, and what you've done is drawn toes where there aren't any.

Nope. That'd be you,seeings things that aren't there.

Here, see for yourself:

Spoiler

Or do you think there was only one thing walking around?

Clearly there were at least two different types of dinosaurs one which walked on the toes and the other walking along the entire foot - like humans do.

Strange. I see at least four human-looking toe-prints. Your eyes need checking.

Yeah, if you analyse dino tracks, all you're going to see is dino tracks.

If you're looking for human prints, you're going to squint and strain till you see them in a handful of distorted tracks. Or you can examine what's there and try and figure out what they actually are.

Say, by comparison to actual human-like footprints.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Okay those are closeup images of the same trackway you're claiming is made up of human prints below.

Nope.

If you're looking for human prints, you're going to squint and strain till you see them in a handful of distorted tracks. Or you can examine what's there and try and figure out what they actually are.

Have fun.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Nope.

It is. If you'd read my link you'd see it's titled "Taylor Site man tracks".

There are far more images of the tracks than the fuzzy far away one your site promotes.

Maybe you'll recognize this one.

Spoiler

Your image


Another image of the same site where the tridactyl shape of the footprints isn't obscured by overexposure. Selective picture taking on a creationist site? Duh.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

It is. If you'd read my link you'd see it's titled "Taylor Site man tracks".

And if you'd read my link you'd know what you're supposed to be looking at.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

It's easy to ignore something that's never been presented. You've made unsubstantiated claims. That's it.

Says the person that doesn't know what Haldane's Dilemma is. How would you know what the evidence is when you don't understand your theory?

A single parent with a mutation could certainly be used in an allele frequency calculation.

Which shows you don't know what Haldane's Dilemma is.

The reason we are even talking about a single parent with a mutation in an allele frequency calculation is because your attempt to make substitution cost to be zero.

You start out well in this explanation, however you collapse towards the end. If an allele is present in the population, even it it's just one individual, it's present in the population's gene pool. It's more likely to be lost by random factors when it is at low frequency, yes.

And thus I'm entirely correct that the chances of getting the next mutation are better when the population with the new feature is bigger. Haldane agreed with me, too.

Do you really want to hitch your hopes to the idea that constantly making the population small will help mutation + NS?

But if it's positively selected, the odds of random loss are much lower than usual.

But now you changing your story, again supporting what I said. After a number of generations the odds of random loss are much lower.

It's not as if it needs to get to a certain level "to be added". Part of the population with the mutation could split off from the rest,

Do you really want to hitch your wagon to the idea that constantly making the population small will help mutation + NS?

or eventually out compete them by having more offspring.

This is more likely if you want mutation + NS to work. But then your run into Haldane's Dilemma.

Again the problem with Haldane is real evolution is often faster than the equations predict, hence considerable revision occurred during the decades after his publication.

And the revisions show the real cost of substitution to be... what?

I read several summaries describing the creationist depiction of Haldane's "dilemma" and answered you accordingly. Not one has described it as you have.

And I only read Haldane and evolutionist sources. Get up to speed if you want to discuss a topic. I have no idea what the creationists say about it since I didn't read them except for Remine. And he is accurate about what Haldane said.

You're talking about someone that was writing in the 1920s with nonexistent knowledge of actual DNA data.

Geez woman! Can't you even take the time to scan the Wiki page?!!?!?!

1920's?!?!?!

And yet you (and Remine) have magically dug out some major challenge to evolutionary theory, because you say it is?

Because Haldane said it was, and because you have not refuted Haldane. Heck, you haven't even shown you understand Haldane!

But never fear, if you actually try and understand Haldane's Dilemma, I'm sure you will understand it better than me. That's your challenge.

Work? What work is that that you've done?
You've recycled the arguments of other creationists.

You have shown no aptitude for understanding either problem. You aren't qualified to say I haven't worked on them.

It's not dogma, it's what makes the most sense given ALL available evidence. In science (in any type or reasoning) you don't immediately jump to the least likely conclusion when something looks a bit unusual.

Given all the available evidence, there is certainly something to the possibility that there were human tracks at Paluxy. And lucky for anyone that wanted to look further, the layer goes under undisturbed ground. But does anyone look? No... that would be the end of someone's career if they found a human footprint.

Also . . .5 toes?

Yes, 5 toes on the human tracks, and less on the dinosaur tracks that are at the same location. Since these days all the tracks are weathered away, if a real scientist wanted to find out what kind of tracks there were at the river bed, they would follow that layer under the undisturbed ground.