PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester is not denying that mudskippers are both terestrial and aquatic, he is asserting doubt that one or the other feature happened in response to environmental changes.

Orion, you have stated strongly the case about natural selection in addition to mutations. But wouldn't hardship be evident for a fish accustomed to breathing in water to try to adapt to the world outside water? Wouldn't it be easier for a fish to just find a better pool of water to continue living the life it is so well suited for?


(Edited by porkchop 1/31/2010 at 6:49 PM).


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:47 PM on January 31, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:47 PM on January 31, 2010 :
Lester is not denying that mudskippers are both terestrial and aquatic. . .


No, that's exactly what he said:
Quote from Lester10 at 12:34 AM on January 31, 2010 :
They walk on land right now, are we to assume something impossible that takes place right now?


The problem is it's not going anywhere. This one looks washed up, not walking out - and since it is a fish, obviously different fish have different features, and the only way you have them ultimately leaving the water (in your imagination) is because you need to explain, with your naturalistic religion, how you got here.



Orion, you have stated strongly the case about natural selection in addition to mutations. But wouldn't hardship be evident for a fish accustomed to breathing in water to try to adapt to the world outside water? Wouldn't it be easier for a fish to just find a better pool of water to continue living the life it is so well suited for?


That's an excellent hypothesis on how it started, now, what happens when the pools get farther apart?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:57 PM on January 31, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 02:30 AM on January 31, 2010 :
The skin. He's focused on the skin.


I was focusing on the skin, not talking about the lungs. All along I have wondered that not only did the mutations occur luckily to allow fish to breathe air outside water but in order to do that, nother mutations occurred to allow them to tolerate not having their skin dry up while gulping the air.



I guess it is easy to convince yourself of something if you completely ignore the evidence that is put in front of you. We are making this very simly by using examples of animals that are alive today to explain the transition. You say that your only real issue is that the skin must be resistant to dessication. We say, fish evolved into amphibians, these were the first tetrapods. So again, to answer your question, the tetrapods that fish evolved into did not immediately have skin resistant to dessication so you have yourself a strawman.

Dessication was NOT an issue.

Would you like to now move onto the next problem for the fish to reptile/mammal/man evolution?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:14 PM on January 31, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 1:37 PM on January 30, 2010 :

So much for Biblical myths and legends - you guys are better at inventing stories then the person who wrote about the frog that turned into a prince.  


But not nearly as good as the creepy weirdos who wrote about collecting and burning foreskins to appease Yahweh...

Which your 'experts' believe without question...


(Edited by derwood 2/1/2010 at 08:50 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:46 AM on February 1, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[Apoapsis

That's an excellent hypothesis on how it started, now, what happens when the pools get farther apart?


Make up another story?

Firechild
I guess it is easy to convince yourself of something if you completely ignore the evidence that is put in front of you. We are making this very simly by using examples of animals that are alive today to explain the transition.


So.. no evidence, just looking at animals alive today and imagining. 'Explain the transition' is code for 'make up the story of what we believe must have happened if indeed everything made itself as we like to imagine.'

the tetrapods that fish evolved into did not immediately have skin resistant to dessication so you have yourself a strawman.


And you have a fairytale. I truly hope you can recognize it...

Dessication was NOT an issue.


How do you know this? Were you there?

Would you like to now move onto the next problem for the fish to reptile/mammal/man evolution?


You mean having safely imagined that transition - we can press on?

But not nearly as good as the creepy weirdos who wrote about collecting and burning foreskins to appease Yahweh...


At least we don't believe that monkeys turned into men. That's a little hard to swallow.









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:37 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
wisp
The skin. He's focused on the skin.
I was focusing on the skin, not talking about the lungs. All along I have wondered that not only did the mutations occur luckily to allow fish to breathe air outside water but in order to do that, nother mutations occurred to allow them to tolerate not having their skin dry up while gulping the air.
And all along we've been answering to you.

All along your skull has been too thick to understand the simple answer:

IT DID NOT HAPPEN!

No matter what font i use, what size, uppercase or lowercase, it won't get through your skull, apparently.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:36 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:37 AM on February 3, 2010 :
Apoapsis
That's an excellent hypothesis on how it started, now, what happens when the pools get farther apart?


Make up another story?


Don't need to, there is evidence of the climatic conditions during the Devonian.  You make a conscious effort to ignore the facts.




Firechild
I guess it is easy to convince yourself of something if you completely ignore the evidence that is put in front of you. We are making this very simly by using examples of animals that are alive today to explain the transition.


So.. no evidence, just looking at animals alive today and imagining. 'Explain the transition' is code for 'make up the story of what we believe must have happened if indeed everything made itself as we like to imagine.'


Plenty of evidence you that you ignore, but when we ask you to back up your wild claims you run away.

the tetrapods that fish evolved into did not immediately have skin resistant to dessication so you have yourself a strawman.


And you have a fairytale. I truly hope you can recognize it...


Since when is common sense, evidence, and living examples a fairy tale?



Dessication was NOT an issue.


How do you know this? Were you there?


Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?  If not, this is a very hypocritical comment.  Eyewitness accounts are considered some of the weakest evidence in court.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:57 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:37 AM on February 3, 2010 :
But not nearly as good as the creepy weirdos who wrote about collecting and burning foreskins to appease Yahweh...


At least we don't believe that monkeys turned into men. That's a little hard to swallow.



Right - much easier to swallow that some magical deity - one of several apparently - blew on dirt and a fully formed human male popped out.

Because supernatural powers are much more rational than understood natural processes.





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:01 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:34 AM on January 31, 2010 :
...because you need to explain, with your naturalistic religion, how you got here.

See what I mean about myths?




Yeah - so, what is YOUR "explanation" on how fish - or anything else - got here?


Some magical being that, darnit, nobody has seen do anything since ancient times, just weilled it thus?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:12 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Don't need to, there is evidence of the climatic conditions during the Devonian.  


So you reckon you've got the climatic conditions but you still can't possibly know that a fish turned into an amphibian because the supposed 'links' are so few and far between compared to the vast array of actual fish fossils and actual amphibian fossils. How can we link them together, when it can't be done today and it isn't happening today, except via fertile imagination?
Fossils are dead bones you know and they don't speak except perhaps to say - "Are you joking?!" when some brainwashed naturalist says 'Well it's perfectly obvious that this must have changed into that very slowly and gradually."

Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?


If you're saying that you nonetheless have to come to that conclusion despite having no eyewitnesses, I'm saying -'Aren't you lucky there were no eyewitnesses or you'd have to reconsider your naturalistic fabulous tales.'
The fossils don't back you up. In fact fossils in principle can't back you up since they're all dead, have no date tags, and not one can be seen to be capable of turning into anything else. It's also not happening today nor is it possible genetically -so I guess that's all the evidence I need.

You on the other hand have to point to your lack of evidence, and your nonetheless firm conviction, as backup for your position.

You make a conscious effort to ignore the facts.


Oh wow, unfortunately to me it seems that you are the one ignoring the facts.

DerwoodRight - much easier to swallow that some magical deity


Oh so now you're admitting that it's a matter of choice or which one you'd prefer to believe- and you find monkeys turning into men and mud arranging itself more likely than intelligence arranging matter?

Because supernatural powers are much more rational than understood natural processes.


According to the actual experimental evidence, mud can't arrange itself into anything near life via natural processes - so you can dream on but it never happens and that is what the evidence shows.

It's disingenuous or just outright dishonest that failures in the laboratory are mirepresented as successes in the textbooks.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 :

Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?


If you're saying that you nonetheless have to come to that conclusion despite having no eyewitnesses, I'm saying -'Aren't you lucky there were no eyewitnesses or you'd have to reconsider your naturalistic fabulous tales.'
The fossils don't back you up. In fact fossils in principle can't back you up since they're all dead, have no date tags, and not one can be seen to be capable of turning into anything else. It's also not happening today nor is it possible genetically -so I guess that's all the evidence I need.

You on the other hand have to point to your lack of evidence, and your nonetheless firm conviction, as backup for your position.



Please answer the question, rather than avoiding it.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:45 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 :


According to the actual experimental evidence, mud can't arrange itself into anything near life via natural processes - so you can dream on but it never happens and that is what the evidence shows.

It's disingenuous or just outright dishonest that failures in the laboratory are mirepresented as successes in the textbooks.



Plugging your ears and saying "nanhnahnahnahnahnahnah", does not make the actual evidence go away.

The emergence of the non-cellular phase of life on the fine-grained clayish particles of the early Earth's regolith

Mark D. Nussinova, Vladimir A. Otroshchenkob and Salvatore SantoliCorresponding Author Contact Information, c, Corresponding Author Contact Information

a International Nanobiological Testbed, Russian Branch, Belomorskaya str. 22, Building 3, apt. 351, 125195, Moscow, Russia

b A.N.Bach Institute of Biochemistry of Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky prospekt 33, 117071, Moscow, Russia

c International Nanobiological Testbed, Italian Branch, via A. Zotti 86, I-00121, Rome, Italy

Available online 11 March 1999.

Abstract

A scenario of the origin of the very first ribonucleoproteinoid virus-like complexes, which is based on their synthesis in the interlaminar spaces of clayish grain regolith of the primitive Earth, about 4 billion years ago when water in the form of liquid drops first appeared. The proposed model explains the origin of chirality of modern biopolymers as a result of preferential adsorption of biomonomers on such grains.

Author Keywords: Origin of life; Soliton impulse; Emergence; Regolith; Clays; Nanoreactors




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:27 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 :

Fossils are dead bones you know and they don't speak except perhaps to say - "Are you joking?!" when some brainwashed naturalist says 'Well it's perfectly obvious that this must have changed into that very slowly and gradually."


Right - better to attribute them to an imperfect deity who needed lots of trial and error to get his shit together.



Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?


If you're saying that you nonetheless have to come to that conclusion despite having no eyewitnesses, I'm saying -'Aren't you lucky there were no eyewitnesses or you'd have to reconsider your naturalistic fabulous tales.'
The fossils don't back you up. In fact fossils in principle can't back you up since they're all dead, have no date tags, and not one can be seen to be capable of turning into anything else.


It is pretty sad how little about science you learned while earning your 'doctorate'.
It's also not happening today nor is it possible genetically -so I guess that's all the evidence I need.

Why is it not possible genetically?

You make a conscious effort to ignore the facts.


Oh wow, unfortunately to me it seems that you are the one ignoring the facts.

Which facts?

You already established that the 'facts' that you think support YECism are merely supposed problems with evolution.  Not only do you have NO independant facts that support a 6000 year earth and a 6 24-hour day creation, but you have an exceptionally poor grasp of basic logic.

If A is not true, it does not in any way necessarily mean that B is true, especially when there are no facts in B's support.

If I claim the moon is green cheese and you claim it is blue cheese, if it is proved that the moon is NOT green cheese, you are saying that it must therefore be blue cheese.

Derwood
Right - much easier to swallow that some magical deity


Oh so now you're admitting that it's a matter of choice or which one you'd prefer to believe-

Not in the least - I am pointing out the absurdity of your position.

and you find monkeys turning into men

Cladistically speaking, men are still monkeys.

and mud arranging itself more likely than intelligence arranging matter?

When there is no evidence that this 'intelligence' even exists, much less actually took an active role in any of earth's history, yes.

Because supernatural powers are much more rational than understood natural processes.


According to the actual experimental evidence,


Please lay out this evidence for us if you can.  I am unaware of any such experiments.

mud can't arrange itself into anything near life via natural processes - so you can dream on but it never happens and that is what the evidence shows.


So, if something does not happen on a regular basis, according to you, it can not have happened at all?

So, tell us when the last time an anthropomorphic ethereal superbing was observed swooping down on a pillar of fire to blow the breath of life into a pile of mud and a fully formed adult male popped out.

Or do you have a different set of criteria for that phenomenon?

It's disingenuous or just outright dishonest that failures in the laboratory are mirepresented as successes in the textbooks.


When you can show that an experiment was performed in which an attempt was made to, as you implied, induce mud to rearrange itself to make life, I would like to see it, and I would like to see how it was referred to in textbooks.

If you are referring to the Miller-Urey experiments, then you are simply misrepresenting them.  Or maybe Werner or Meyer did and you are just parrotting their disinformation?

(Edited by derwood 2/4/2010 at 08:16 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:07 AM on February 3, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
firechild
Dessication was NOT an issue.
How do you know this? Were you there?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:46 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fossils.
The subject of fossils from what I have read seems to work in both favors of TOE and ID'ers. While TOE can piece fossils together and seemingly make the case for transitionals, there are IDers who look at the same "evidence" and are not convinced. The quest I have is should there not be millions of convincing transitionals abounding in the record since we have a myriad of species in existence today?

Another point is I see that for example, the dragonfly today, looks identical as it did 300M years ago, no evolution to speak of here?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:10 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The subject of fossils from what I have read seems to work in both favors of TOE and ID'ers.

Well no, the fossil record supports the TOE and refutes ID, since we do see transitionals.

While TOE can piece fossils together and seemingly make the case for transitionals,

"Seemingly"???  Have you looked at any of the sequences of fossils?  Have you seen how overwhelmingly obvious it is that they evolved?  Look at the sequence for reptile to mammal evolution and try to refute the fact that reptiles evolved into mammals...

there are IDers who look at the same "evidence" and are not convinced.

That's because no amount of evidence will convince them, they reject science in favor of their personal superstitions.

The quest I have is should there not be millions of convincing transitionals abounding in the record since we have a myriad of species in existence today?

What percentage of dead organisms fossilize?  what percentage of dead organisms have we found so far?  Do you know how fossilization works?  How do you explain the obvious transitional series of fossils we HAVE found.

Another point is I see that for example, the dragonfly today, looks identical as it did 300M years ago, no evolution to speak of here?

Again, no, they are not identical to modern dragonflies.  I assume you're talking about Protodonata.  From here:
Protodonata

"The Protodonata or Meganisoptera are an extinct order of very large to gigantic Palaeozoic (Late Carboniferous to Late Permian) insects, similar in appearance to, and related to, dragonflies. Most were only slightly larger than modern dragonflies, but the group does include the largest known insects, such as the late Carboniferous Meganeura monyi, Megatypus, and the even larger early Permian Meganeuropsis permiana, with wingspans of up to 71 centimetres (2.3 ft)[1].

The fore and hind wings are similar in venation (a primitive feature) except for the larger anal (rearwards) area in the hind wing. The fore wing is usually more slender and slightly longer than the hind wing. Unlike the true dragonflies, they had no pterostigma, and a somewhat simpler pattern of veins in the wings.

Most specimens are known from wing fragments only; with only a few as complete wings, and even fewer (of the family Meganeuridae) with body impressions. These show a globose head with large dentate mandibles, strong spiny legs, a large thorax, and long and slender dragonfly-like abdomen. Like true dragonflies, they were presumably predators.

A few nymphs are also known, and show similar mouthparts to those of modern dragonfly nymphs, suggesting that that they were also active aquatic predators.[2]

Although sometimes included under the dragonflies, the Protodonata lack certain distinctive wing features that characterise the Odonata. Grimaldi and Engel, pointing out that the colloquial term "giant dragonfly" is therefore misleading, suggest "griffinfly" instead."

So no, fossil dragonflies aren't identical to modern dragonflies, it's clear they evolved.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:19 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:10 PM on February 3, 2010 :
Another point is I see that for example, the dragonfly today, looks identical as it did 300M years ago, no evolution to speak of here?


Links to evidence are always very helpful when you are trying to make a point.  Can you show us what you are talking about?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:06 PM on February 3, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


It's disingenuous or just outright dishonest that failures in the laboratory are mirepresented as successes in the textbooks.
Apoapsis
Plugging your ears and saying "nanhnahnahnahnahnahnah", does not make the actual evidence go away.
A scenario of the origin of the very first ribonucleoproteinoid virus-like complexes, which is based on their synthesis in the interlaminar spaces of clayish grain regolith of the primitive Earth, about 4 billion years ago when water in the form of liquid drops first appeared. The proposed model explains the origin of chirality of modern biopolymers as a result of preferential adsorption of biomonomers on such grains.


And I’m presuming this scenario is what you would call evidence?

You seem to have lost the plot, Apoapsis. This is imagination based on faith in the presupposition of naturalism.

To spell it out, you believe that everything made itself and you work back from there with likely stories,- which, for you, apparently counts as evidence.

I could also make up those sorts of stories if I had enough faith to beleive that life arose without any intelligent organization.

Apoapsis to Porkchop Links to evidence are always very helpful when you are trying to make a point.  


Oh, you mean like that likely story evidence link quoted above on ribonucleoprotenoid virus-like complexes (love that name )?

As for the evidence of dragonflies that never changed for a few hundred million years, see Carl Werner’s book called ‘Living Fossils’. He has endless photos of fossils found in the so-called dinosaur era. There’s a fossil of a dragonfly from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. It has a different Genus and species name from that of a regular living dragonfly displayed alongside the fossil, but you’ll be amazed to see how little happened after hundreds of millions of years of mutations and natural selection have worked them over. Nothing at all, it appears.

To think that small mammals changed so dramatically that humans were one branch of that extensive process of change in the same period of time that nothing whatsoever happened to dragonflies! Amazing!

Derwood will say ‘pooh, pah to Carl Werner, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” but you should read the book and see the actual evidence before throwing in your lot with Derwood’s assessments otherwise your prejudices will shine through and you will appear to be less than objective.  



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:15 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well no, the fossil record supports the TOE and refutes ID, since we do see transitionals.


Wow Demon38, I know you believe that because you need to, but the funny thing is that you really have to have blinkers on.

Take for example, Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould, who said:
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
--arch-Darwinist, Marxist, and Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.


Not very encouraging, I know. He made a few dogmatic Darwinists very irritated. He even came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory to try to explain the rarity of transitionals. Didn’t you know this - or are you out to deceive us?

Then there’s this:
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, wrote (to Luther Sunderland) in a personal letter.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


At least he cared about misleading the readers -we could do with a few more of those in the evo camp.

And he continues:

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line –there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Even Old Charlie, your hero:
Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Good excuse Charlie and maybe credible at the time.

However as David Raup subsequently explained:

David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses the world’s biggest fossil collection.
“He (Darwin) was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the origin of species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…..Darwin’s general solution to the incompatability of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…..well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition  than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information –what appeared to be  a nice simple progression when relatively few data points were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.


Need any more Demon? These are all your people…not a creationist amongst them, the problem for you is that they were far more honest than what I see on this forum.

 Have you seen how overwhelmingly obvious it is that they evolved?

Oops there goes Demon38 again –I’m going to be sick…










-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:41 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:57 AM on February 3, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:37 AM on February 3, 2010 :


How do you know this? Were you there?


Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?  If not, this is a very hypocritical comment.  Eyewitness accounts are considered some of the weakest evidence in court.



Lester apparently considers this unanswerable.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:20 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester apparently considers this unanswerable.


Where you have no eyewitnesses, you at least need more than one possible scenario for what might have happened. Naturalism alone is philisophical dogma, not science.

So how about you answer this:
Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould said:
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
--arch-Darwinist, Marxist, and Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.

Not very encouraging, I know. He made a few dogmatic Darwinists very irritated. He even came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory to try to explain the rarity of transitionals.

Then there’s this:
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, wrote (to Luther Sunderland) in a personal letter.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


And he continues:

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line –there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Even Old Charlie, your hero:
Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Good excuse Charlie and maybe credible at the time.
However as David Raup subsequently explained:
David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses the world’s biggest fossil collection.
“He (Darwin) was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the origin of species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…..Darwin’s general solution to the incompatability of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…..well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition  than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information –what appeared to be  a nice simple progression when relatively few data points were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.


So what do you think -punctuated equilibrium or creation? Only blind dogma can tell you its the gradual evolution of your fairytales.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:53 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you're saying then, that you have no answer?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:00 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:15 AM on February 4, 2010 :
To think that small mammals changed so dramatically that humans were one branch of that extensive process of change in the same period of time that nothing whatsoever happened to dragonflies! Amazing!


We see that you've forgotten all of what phenotype entails..


Derwood will say ‘pooh, pah to Carl Werner, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” but you should read the book and see the actual evidence before throwing in your lot with Derwood’s assessments otherwise your prejudices will shine through and you will appear to be less than objective.  



Carl Werner, medical doctor, evolution asa hobby studier, visitor of museums:

p. 112:

"... The theory of evolution says that a ground mammal changed into a bat by a series of mistaken mutations in the DNA of the reproductive cells.  For this to occur, thousands of letters of DNA would have had to change by accident, in the proper location, and in the proper order."


" If jawless fish are the evolutionary predecessors of other fish, one would expect them to be extinct, according to the idea of survival of the fittest."

Those are the sort of 'arguments' that 9th graders make after hearing some crackpot antievolutionist give a lecture at their church, not the sorts of learned commentary that one who went to all those museums and studied evolution for 30 years should be making.

Why don't you bring up his seal evolution story again so I can again demonstrate how dishonest and/or underinformed your hero is?

Am I biased?

Absolutely - I am biased against anyone who tries to present themselves as being more honest and informaed than they really are, all the while making demonstrably false and otherwise idiotic, ignorant claims.

If YOU want o tput your faith is the rants of some YEC clown who has made several demonstrably disinformative or toherwise erroneous claims, you go right ahead, but a rational person should wonder how it is that a person with a science-related doctorate (but not a PhD or EdD) can be so easily flim-flammed like you clearly have been.







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:06 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:53 AM on February 4, 2010 :
Lester apparently considers this unanswerable.


Where you have no eyewitnesses, you at least need more than one possible scenario for what might have happened. Naturalism alone is philisophical dogma, not science.


Yet you are perfectly happy rejecting plausible naturalistic scenarios based on observation and experiment to please your own philosophical bias.

So how about you answer this:
Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould said:
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
--arch-Darwinist, Marxist, and Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.



Let's look at the quote in context and see if any editing had been done to distort the meaning:
Gould, S. J. 1980. "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change" in The Panda's Thumb, pp. 179-185. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

It shouldn't surprise those familiar with Gould's books that an article for the magazine Natural History would show up in one of his essay collections, but it is surprising that it has a different title and that there are some differences in the body of the article. And so, it's now obvious why the last sentence in the above is also in Quote #14 of the original Quote Mine Project. They both refer to the same article, and in fact appear in the same pages in "The Panda's Thumb" (pp. 181-182). John Wilkins certainly did more than an adequate job of clarifying Gould's beliefs in that entry, but a slightly different claim is being made here, so I'll do what I can.

A more complete quote would be as follows (words in square brackets ([]) appear in the "Panda's Thumb" essay, and not in the original):

   The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

       The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

   Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

   Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

   For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

   [1] Referring to Huxley's warning to Darwin, literally on the eve of the publication of Origin of Species, that "[y]ou have loaded yourself with an unnecessary difficulty in adopting Natura non facit saltum [nature does not make leaps] so unreservedly." - Ed.


Hmmm, lots of words deleted with no ellipsis.

I could make you say anything I wanted following this example.

Perfect example of deceptive quote mining by morally bankrupt creationists.  Thanks for pointing that out Lester.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:21 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you're saying then, that you have no answer?


No, I answered; but it sure looks like you don't want to talk about the problem with the transitional fossils.

Everyone is jumping in with a whole lot of crap very quickly here - sure looks suspicious to me.

I like to think you're all just badly informed but sometimes I wonder...


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 09:28 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:53 AM on February 4, 2010 :
Lester apparently considers this unanswerable.


Where you have no eyewitnesses, you at least need more than one possible scenario for what might have happened. Naturalism alone is philisophical dogma, not science.

"Possible" does not equate to "plausible."


So how about you answer this:
Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould said:
"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology - we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."[1]
--arch-Darwinist, Marxist, and Harvard Paleontology professor  Dr. Stephen J. Gould.

Not very encouraging, I know. He made a few dogmatic Darwinists very irritated. He even came up with the punctuated equilibrium theory to try to explain the rarity of transitionals.


Is your presentation a direct quote from Werner's book (or some other YEC source)?

If so, it is, as are so many YEC quotes of evolutionists, a dishonest one, for it leaves out a big chunk in themiddle and does not indicate this, and [presented as a standa lone quote, like you've done, is a classic quote mine.

A more complete quote:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.


Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]


That, too, was written nearly 30 years ago.  I have Gould's last book at home, perhaps I will look to see what he says about this in 2005...



Then there’s this:
Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British museum of Natural History, wrote (to Luther Sunderland) in a personal letter.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?


And he continues:

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line –there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


Patterson's letter to one Dr.Theunissen, in response to an inquiry about the Sunderland letter (written nearly 30 years ago):


Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson


What was your point again?


Even Old Charlie, your hero:
Charles Darwin – The Origin of Species
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.


Good excuse Charlie and maybe credible at the time.

The very next sentence and those following it are interesting:

"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. "


But how would you know? You're just parrotting quotes you found in Werner's book.

Say - don't YOU think that anintermediate/rtransitional form should be exactly half-way between the ancestor and descendant?  Didn't you recently claim that there should be a fossil with half-legs and half-fins or something similarly stupid?

However as David Raup subsequently explained:
David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses the world’s biggest fossil collection.
“He (Darwin) was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the origin of species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…..Darwin’s general solution to the incompatability of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…..well we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition  than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information –what appeared to be  a nice simple progression when relatively few data points were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic.



It is amazing - googling that quote produced HUNDREDS of returns to creationist websites.  Funny how you folks just love to use quotes rather than do any actual research.  

Of note, Raup wrote that in 1979.

In the world of the YEC, 30 year old quotes are much better than actually looking around to see what is going on today.

So what do you think -punctuated equilibrium or creation? Only blind dogma can tell you its the gradual evolution of your fairytales.  

PE is still evolution.  How quickly do you think Gould proposed PE to work?  Are you aware (it seems niot) that Gould did also mentin that there ARE several examples of very nice gradual transtional series in the fossil record?  No, of course not - arguing by quote only works when you ignore quotes that do not prop up your position.

By the way - here is something Gould wrote in 1981, germane to your quote emphases mine:


We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.


Interesting...






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:35 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 3:28 PM on February 4, 2010 :
So you're saying then, that you have no answer?


No, I answered; .

Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?  

Where you have no eyewitnesses, you at least need more than one possible scenario for what might have happened. Naturalism alone is philisophical dogma, not science.

Hmmm, no, you didn't answer. You replied, but you didn't answer. You wriggled, you weaseled, you avoided, but you didn't answer
but it sure looks like you don't want to talk about the problem with the transitional fossils
Answer the question first, without dodging, weaseling or avoiding. Just answer the question.
Everyone is jumping in with a whole lot of crap very quickly here - sure looks suspicious to me.
You mean like when someone asks you a question and you dodge it by asking an irrelevant question?
I like to think you're all just badly informed but sometimes I wonder...

Excellent! At least you are now actually questioning your assumptions. It's a start.



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 09:37 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:28 AM on February 4, 2010 :
So you're saying then, that you have no answer?


No, I answered; but it sure looks like you don't want to talk about the problem with the transitional fossils.


Why bother? You reject sequences with many or few elements equally.  You run whenever presented with actual evidence and resort to copying from your holy quote mine texts.  You are afraid of discussion because it shows the bankruptcy of your position.  Your only interest is blindly blathering your position with your blinders on.

Everyone is jumping in with a whole lot of crap very quickly here - sure looks suspicious to me.

I like to think you're all just badly informed but sometimes I wonder...


You wonder if we're really correct?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:37 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 09:28 AM on February 4, 2010 :
So you're saying then, that you have no answer?


No, I answered; but it sure looks like you don't want to talk about the problem with the transitional fossils.


You 'answered' by prioviding some second hand 30 year old quotes of dubious veracity, cribbed, no doubt, from some YEC-penned book that you've accepted at face value.



Everyone is jumping in with a whole lot of crap very quickly here - sure looks suspicious to me.

As suspicious as 'answering' questions with a couple of quotes know to have been misrepresented by YECs for decades?

Wow, your degree-granting institution must be proud...

I like to think you're all just badly informed but sometimes I wonder...

Sure, you like to... Then, you like to think that you and your sources are 100% correct about things that you are demonstrably wrong on, to include very basic science.

So how would you even know?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:44 AM on February 4, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So despite what Lester said, do any evolutionists here believe that we have any species today that DID NOT evolve over the course of tens & hundreds of millions of years?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:59 PM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:59 PM on February 4, 2010 :
So despite what Lester said, do any evolutionists here believe that we have any species today that DID NOT evolve over the course of tens & hundreds of millions of years?


Of course, the London Underground Mosquito didn't evolve until there were subways in London.


London Underground Mosquito

There are many examples of observed speciation, this is just one.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:36 PM on February 4, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Possible" does not equate to "plausible."


Nor does plausible necessarily equate to possible.

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.


Well I sure don’t see this ‘complete quote’  helping you at all. I think you’re finding excuses and making your point badly here. The fossils still don’t indicate gradualism and all that is being done about it, is that excuses are being offered based on a belief that the fossil record is not really a valid indicator of what evolutionists know must have happened despite the lack of evidence.

The theory of evolution sure seems to require gradual change but then if we don’t find it, we just say it doesn’t require gradual change and make up another story about why it doesn’t.

That, too, was written nearly 30 years ago.


And there’s been no improvement in all this time so that doesn’t help.

Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.


So now that you have the whole quote and it says nothing contradictory to what I already quoted –will you please reconcile why you guys mention loads of transitionals, hard to imagine that anyone can’t see evolution clearly, with this portion of the quote?

The very next sentence and those following it are interesting:


"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms directly intermediate between them.


You see, this is assuming that there is any validity to the theory, in other words if philosophical naturalism and the Darwinian theory are, in any sense,true.

But how would you know? You're just parrotting quotes you found in Werner's book.


No point in running Werner down needlessly, it doesn’t help your case in the slightest to talk rubbish about people if you can’t produce the fossils. The quotes never came from Werner but the situation with the fossils still exists.

Say - don't YOU think that anintermediate/rtransitional form should be exactly half-way between the ancestor and descendant?  


Exactly halfway? – are you trying to present my statements as moronic –yes, of course you are. But the intermediate fossils still don’t exist so you’re just playing with words and pretending to be clever.

Didn't you recently claim that there should be a fossil with half-legs and half-fins or something similarly stupid?


Well Derwood, if you claim that legs change into wings then there should be an awful lot of transitionals between the two. Do you imagine that there would be a great leap –one day legs, the next day fins?

It is amazing - googling that quote produced HUNDREDS of returns to creationist websites.  Funny how you folks just love to use quotes rather than do any actual research.  


Derwood, why wouldn’t creationists love to quote those things that were said, and obviously evolutionists would love them to never see the light of day. You see it’s really simple. Occasionally evolutionists say things that are true (though these days they try not to) and obviously creationists will jump on those things because evolutionists said them, not creationists - so you should then wonder why there are no transitionals if your own people admit as much, not look for excuses for why they said what they said.

Funny how you folks just love to use quotes rather than do any actual research.  


So everything we say must be original research or it means nothing. Have you ever quoted anything that wasn’t your own original research? Does that make it less valid? I hope not otherwise it would appear that you have double standards.
I’ve told you before and I’ll repeat it, we have the same data, doesn’t matter who does the research but we interpret it according to our worldview and you interpret it according to yours –so it goes like this:
Fact: FEW DUBIOUS TRANSITIONALS IN VAST FOSSIL RECORD
Evolutionists interpretation: (5 possible excuses)
1.Incomplete fossils record OR
2.It should look that way, why would we see transitionals between one thing and another when we say that that one thing turned into the other. No, we should see nothing. Exactly what we predict we should see.
3.Lets make up a new story called ‘punctuated equilibrium’ so that if we can’t find signs of gradualism, we can at least report back signs of PE.
4.This is quote miming –ignore it.
5.This must a fool that said this –ignore him.

Creationist’s Interpretation:
Lack of intermediates implies that macroevolution is false since we now have 200 million fossils in our collections and the big empty spaces between fish and amphibians, Cambrian explosion etc. are still there, clear as day.

But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,
Colin Patterson


So good for him. Others could learn from that. No creationist website proclaims people like Patterson as cupboard creationists but the content of what they say is interesting even though they have to cover their own words carefully afterwards when attacked by their own people for being honest.
As for this:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.


That’s not true either so he’s clearly backtracking unsuccessfully. If they were abundant between larger groups, why didn’t he show them in his book -.because he said there weren’t any to show. That’s why.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:45 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:59 PM on February 4, 2010 :
So despite what Lester said, do any evolutionists here believe that we have any species today that DID NOT evolve over the course of tens & hundreds of millions of years?


Do you even read people's responses?

WHAT did Lester say that was NOT shown to be nonsense?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:55 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You 'answered' by prioviding some second hand 30 year old quotes of dubious veracity, cribbed, no doubt, from some YEC-penned book that you've accepted at face value.

Derwood you sure know how to repeat the same empty phrases over and over again. What do you mean  ‘of dubious veracity’ if you can quote the fuller version yourself? Your words are empty of meaning. It means they are not dubious at all but are real quotes from real evolutionists, exactly as stated.
Some YEC book? Who cares where it comes from as long as it is true? If it was made up, well that’s different - but you know it isn’t made up.
As suspicious as 'answering' questions with a couple of quotes know to have been misrepresented by YECs for decades?

Misrepresented? No, I don’t think so. You just wish those people quoted had never said what they said as it weakens your case when they admit to the paucity of evidence for their theory.
Wow, your degree-granting institution must be proud...


Prouder than yours must be –with good reason.

Sure, you like to... Then, you like to think that you and your sources are 100% correct about things that you are demonstrably wrong on, to include very basic science.

So how would you even know?


Emptier and emptier Derwood. Shallower and weaker than ever. You should start rewriting your book of insults to include something that means something for a change.

Guess what –despite all your shallow ranting, there are still no transitional fossils of any real value and I think you know that.

Your Darwinian story is false though you desperately want it to be true, that much is clear.





-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:26 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:45 AM on February 5, 2010 :
"Possible" does not equate to "plausible."


Nor does plausible necessarily equate to possible.

plau⋅si⋅ble  /ˈplɔzəbəl/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [plaw-zuh-buhl]  Show IPA
–adjective 1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable: a plausible excuse; a plausible plot.  
2. well-spoken and apparently, but often deceptively, worthy of confidence or trust: a plausible commentator.  

Yeah, I guess not...


The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.


Well I sure don’t see this ‘complete quote’  helping you at all. I think you’re finding excuses and making your point badly here.


Of course you don't, since you think the snippet you got from Werner told the whole 30 year old story.


The fossils still don’t indicate gradualism


And you are thus arguing against a 30 year old point.

I.e., you are 3 decades behind.

I asked you in the 'definitions' thread and, of course, you were unable to answer for some reason, what you meant by "gradualism", and now I ask you why this is such a big deal.

A textbook I will be using for my Evolution class had this to say:

"Doug Erwin and Robert Antsy (1995a,b) reviewed a total of 58 studies conducted to test the theory of punctuated equilibrium. ...Erwin and Antsy's conclusion was that "Paleontological evidence overwhelmingly supports a view that speciation is sometimes gradual and sometimes punctuated, and that no one mode characterizes this very complicated process in the history of life."

Gould was a good guy, but I will take 25 year more recent material over his position any day.
Taken in conjunction with the more complete Gould quote and suddenly we see something - that Gould may have been correct in terms of the evidence available to him at the time (though as I mentioned, Gould did acknowledge that are actually some examples of gradualism in the fossil record) but in larger scale studies we see that there is evidence for both gradual and punctuated speciation.

Arguing as your heroes do that gradualism is the only way is an outmoded argument that, given the entirety of Gould's position, didn't have much weight to begin with.

That is the problem of arguing via quote - at some point, the quote is just no longer relevant.

The theory of evolution sure seems to require gradual change but then if we don’t find it, we just say it doesn’t require gradual change and make up another story about why it doesn’t.


So tell us all why it requires gradual change.  Sure, Darwin postulated that premised on what he knew at the time.  All I see is some sily requirement by YEC cultists that scientists must know everything from the word go, and if something new is found out later, then the scientists must have been totally 100% wrong on everything.  What a dumb position to take.


That, too, was written nearly 30 years ago.


And there’s been no improvement in all this time so that doesn’t help.

Only if you ignore the evidence that:

1. the juicy 30 year old quotes don't tell the whole story
2. there in fact has been a great deal of 'improvement'


But that is what YEC cultists do - they argue against phantoms.

Yet Gould and the American museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils.


So now that you have the whole quote and it says nothing contradictory to what I already quoted –will you please reconcile why you guys mention loads of transitionals, hard to imagine that anyone can’t see evolution clearly, with this portion of the quote?


Again, you are arguing about using more quotes form DECADES ago - this time a quote that was clearly misrepresented and taken out of context by a creatonist - did younot read the Patterson letter?

The very next sentence and those following it are interesting:


"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself forms directly intermediate between them.


You see, this is assuming that there is any validity to the theory, in other words if philosophical naturalism and the Darwinian theory are, in any sense,true.


Well golly gee willackers Mister L - Darwin was writing ABOUT HIS THEORY!!!

Use your head for once.

But how would you know? You're just parrotting quotes you found in Werner's book.


No point in running Werner down needlessly, it doesn’t help your case in the slightest to talk rubbish about people if you can’t produce the fossils. The quotes never came from Werner but the situation with the fossils still exists.


It is not needless - the guy is a fraud and a charlatan who does not - clearly - understadn even the basic premises of evolution, as just those 2 quotes - from HIM - I presented clearly demonstrate.

That he is using decades old quotes as "arguments" today, apparently ignoring the actual evidence, says much - almost as much as the fact that you think the use of these old YEC quote mines are relevant.

Say - don't YOU think that anintermediate/rtransitional form should be exactly half-way between the ancestor and descendant?  


Exactly halfway? – are you trying to present my statements as moronic –yes, of course you are.

Because they ARE:

"The clear examples of transitions should have legs mixed with fins, tail mixed with fluke, nose changing into blowhole, back legs disappearing? "

Gee - what wizard wrote THAT?


But the intermediate fossils still don’t exist so you’re just playing with words and pretending to be clever.


Sure they do.


But since you cannot seem to present a viable, reasonable, scientific definition for what you think a transitional really should look like, your opinion is worthless.

Didn't you recently claim that there should be a fossil with half-legs and half-fins or something similarly stupid?


Well Derwood, if you claim that legs change into wings then there should be an awful lot of transitionals between the two.


How many and how do you know?

WHY should we be able to find them all?


Do you imagine that there would be a great leap –one day legs, the next day fins?


Gee, I don't know...



It is amazing - googling that quote produced HUNDREDS of returns to creationist websites.  Funny how you folks just love to use quotes rather than do any actual research.  


Derwood, why wouldn’t creationists love to quote those things that were said, and obviously evolutionists would love them to never see the light of day.


Creationists love using quotes because they HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER IN SUPPORT OF THIER OWN POSITION.


You see it’s really simple. Occasionally evolutionists say things that are true (though these days they try not to) and obviously creationists will jump on those things because evolutionists said them, not creationists - so you should then wonder why there are no transitionals if your own people admit as much, not look for excuses for why they said what they said.


And then you realize that, in fact, the person who supposedly said there were no transitionals was referring to something specific, not in general, and in fact admitted that there WERE good examples of transitonals and gradualism?  
And then you realize that the quotes in question are DECADES old and that since then, many more transitionals have been discovered!

And you realize that even CREATIONISTS with LEGITIMATE degrees in RELEVANT fields who have actually done RESEARCH admit that there is, in fact, evidence of transtionals and what do YOU DO???

Oh, right - YOU labelled these YECs with real doctorates 'ridiculous':


As for transitional fossils, I prefer (with Wise - PDF) the more neutral term intermediate (transitional implies that there was a transition made), although I'm not very consistent in that preference. As you note, I do not deny that intermediates exist (e.g., feathered dinos here and here). In fact, there are lots and lots of really interesting intermediate forms in the fossil record: Devonian tetrapods, Odontochelys, archaeocetes, various other Cenozoic mammal series, mammal-like reptiles. There are living intermediates as well: Latimeria, platypus, velvet worms, various species of Flaveria.

- Todd Wood, PhD., Bryan College (A fundamentalist YEC college)


Let me guess - he's just "ridiculous"?  He "doesn't know what he's talking about"?

Gee - I did not attack Patterson or Raup or Gould, I merely put their quotes in a context.

YOU, on the other hand, ATTACK YECs that don't carry the YEC cult's water...

Funny how you folks just love to use quotes rather than do any actual research.  


So everything we say must be original research or it means nothing.


It would be nice if YECs actually had somethign that they could talk about.  I didn't mean YOU personally, Iknow you are incapable of doing actual research, I was referring to your handlers.


Have you ever quoted anything that wasn’t your own original research?


Not really.  That is, I tend not to rely exclusively on quotes. I can actually make my own arguments and provide my own supporting evidence if I need to, sometimes in the form of quotes.  But I do not use quotes AS my argument, l;ike you folks like to do.


Does that make it less valid? I hope not otherwise it would appear that you have double standards.

What makes argument via quote invalid is the fact that more often than not, the quotes YECs present are misrepresentations in one form or another, trhat or they are decades out of date.  Or both.

I’ve told you before and I’ll repeat it, we have the same data, doesn’t matter who does the research but we interpret it according to our worldview and you interpret it according to yours –so it goes like this:


I know you keep saying that, and I keep saying that not all interpretations are vaild.

You keep ignoring that.

Fact: FEW DUBIOUS TRANSITIONALS IN VAST FOSSIL RECORD


NOT A FACT.

An unwarranted extrapolation from carefully selected 30 year old quotes.

But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,
Colin Patterson


So good for him. Others could learn from that. No creationist website proclaims people like Patterson as cupboard creationists but the content of what they say is interesting even though they have to cover their own words carefully afterwards when attacked by their own people for being honest.



How insightful...

Of course, nobody attacked Patterson, rather, he was asked about a creationist's disinformation about somethign he had said.
30 years ago.

30 years ago, I should add, many creationists were still of the opinion that ALL the living aninmals were on the ark...


As for this:
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.


That’s not true either so he’s clearly backtracking unsuccessfully.


Oh, so Gould is right when you want him to be, but not right when you don't.

Got it.


If they were abundant between larger groups, why didn’t he show them in his book -.because he said there weren’t any to show. That’s why.


You have his book, do you?


For sonme reason, I don't think you do.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:41 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:26 AM on February 5, 2010 :
You 'answered' by prioviding some second hand 30 year old quotes of dubious veracity, cribbed, no doubt, from some YEC-penned book that you've accepted at face value.

Derwood you sure know how to repeat the same empty phrases over and over again.

Right - like 'there is no evidence for evolution' and 'there are no transitionals'...

What do you mean  ‘of dubious veracity’ if you can quote the fuller version yourself?

Gee, I don't know... Maybe cuz like the quote you produced was missing a big chunk and that was not indicated?
Maybe because when you look at the original source you find that the quote dixd not tell the whole story?

Your words are empty of meaning. It means they are not dubious at all but are real quotes from real evolutionists, exactly as stated.


Sure, they wrote those specific words.  But they alos wrote OTHER words that are ignored and left out of YEC quotes from them.

Some YEC book? Who cares where it comes from as long as it is true?

Because YECs have a long, tortuous history of misrepresenting quotes.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:48 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:26 AM on February 5, 2010 :
As suspicious as 'answering' questions with a couple of quotes known to have been misrepresented by YECs for decades?

Misrepresented? No, I don’t think so.


Yes, very much so, according to at least 2 of the 3 people you provided quotes from - not ot mention that, again, they were written nearly 30 years ago (or more), and lots of things have changed since then.

You just wish those people quoted had never said what they said as it weakens your case when they admit to the paucity of evidence for their theory.


Um, no...

At best, if we take the creationist interpretation of these quotes at face value, there is a paucity of discreet ancestor-descendant transitional fossils.

But even Gould said that there were some, and of course, none of this touches on other types of evidence.

Wow, your degree-granting institution must be proud...


Prouder than yours must be –with good reason.


I'm not sure why - unless your 'doctorate' is in apologetics.  It was certainly notin anythnig that required you to understand basic science concepts.

Sure, you like to... Then, you like to think that you and your sources are 100% correct about things that you are demonstrably wrong on, to include very basic science.

So how would you even know?


Emptier and emptier Derwood. Shallower and weaker than ever. You should start rewriting your book of insults to include something that means something for a change.


That does mean something.

Are you REALLY going to try to claim that you DON'T think that Werner and Meyer and Gitt and Pye and whoever else's book you''ve read is not 100% correct on everything?

Are you REALLY going to try to claim that none of us have shown that something you've cribbed form one of these sourcesis incorrect?

Do you REALLY believe that if evolution were true, there should be no living jawless fish and that all mutations have to have occurred in a specific place in a specific order and that it would take thousands for even minor changes?

ReallY???

Guess what –despite all your shallow ranting, there are still no transitional fossils of any real value and I think you know that.


I know that you are the one that engages in shallow ranting - yammering on about transitional fossils, for example - even when actually qualified creationsits acknowledge that there ARE good example, even when YOU refuse to provide a functional definition of tranxsitional for purposes of being able to reject anything that is presented to you.


Your Darwinian story is false though you desperately want it to be true, that much is clear.


Wow - a mantra!  Color me IMPRESSED.... NOT!

Got to run - I am going to go throw some foreskins on a pyre to make burnt offerings for my Darwinian deity...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:36 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
derwood
"Possible" does not equate to "plausible."
Nor does plausible necessarily equate to possible.
Haha!

As i always say, words is all they have, and they're not good with them anyway.

Yes, Lester. Everything that's plausible is also possible.

"Plausible" is a subset of "possible".



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:27 AM on February 6, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Plausible can refer to a likely story (like those of the evolutionist) -they sound like they might be possible on the surface (like reptiles turning into birds) but if you look into the details of genetics and the fossil evidence (for example), you see that all it is, is a plausible story with no real possibility of ever having happened.

So I don't think it is a subset at all.

Plausible: believable and appearing likely to be true, usually in the absence of proof (Encarta dictionary)



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:10 AM on February 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hum... You might be right on this one... Let me think about it.




Hum... Yeah, i think "plausible" refers to what it looks like. If that's what it refers to, then i was wrong.

Edit: I had not read derwood's post with the definition.


1. having an appearance of truth or reason

Well played, Lester. I admit defeat. No buts.

(Edited by wisp 2/6/2010 at 2:01 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:58 PM on February 6, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:36 PM on February 4, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 5:59 PM on February 4, 2010 :
So despite what Lester said, do any evolutionists here believe that we have any species today that DID NOT evolve over the course of tens & hundreds of millions of years?


Of course, the London Underground Mosquito didn't evolve until there were subways in London.


London Underground Mosquito

There are many examples of observed speciation, this is just one.


Can you tell me about the  London Underground Mosquito?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:46 PM on February 6, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See the red part of what you quoted?

Click on it.

It says London Underground Mosquito. <<< You can click there too.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:41 PM on February 6, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2010 :

Can you tell me about the  London Underground Mosquito?


Google is your friend.


By night, Byrne scavenged grim subterranean puddles for mosquito larvae. By day, she lurked aboveground in tony gardens and backyards, collecting specimens from water-filled buckets and beery vats of compost. Taking her larval captives--C. pipiens from upstairs and C. molestus from downstairs--she returned to the lab to raise them.

As adults, Byrne's subjects proved fascinating. Although the two varieties look identical, their habits differ sharply. C. pipiens hibernates in winter; C. molestus breeds year-round in the warm subway, but it cannot survive the cold. C. pipiens must swarm in the open before mating, whereas C. molestus thrives in confined spaces. When Byrne crossbred the two varieties, none produced viable eggs--suggesting that C. molestus is reproductively isolated, the traditional signature of a new species. (Given the great differences in their behavior, Byrne notes, C. pipiens and C. molestus probably rarely meet or mate "in the wild.")

Analyzing the DNA, Byrne and Nichols found that different colonies of the underground mosquitoes are more genetically similar to one another than to their aboveground brethren. A specimen of C. molestus discovered at Euston, on the Victoria line, is more closely related to a specimen found at Finsbury Park, miles away on the same line, than it is to a visibly identical specimen of C. pipiens captured just upstairs at Euston. In short, subterranean sites are being established by other underground mosquitoes, not by mosquitoes from above. How do the mosquitoes spread through the Underground? "We think that the trains act as pistons, pushing cushions of air"--and mosquitoes--"ahead of them," Nichols says.

And the insects continue to evolve. Byrne and Nichols have identified three genetically distinct subvarieties of C. molestus, each one unique to a different subway line: Victoria, Bakerloo, and Central. The other lines of the Underground probably harbor subvarieties of their own, Byrne adds, "and I'm sure they exist in sewers, though I've not been to look."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:54 PM on February 6, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And the insects continue to evolve.


Wow.... well at least we can agree on adaptation, right?

Its just a question of whether it might become something like a pterodactyl or maybe a helicopter over millions of years that we differ on.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:09 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In this case:

Adaptation = speciation = macroevolution.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:42 AM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Its just a question of whether it might become something like a pterodactyl or maybe a helicopter over millions of years that we differ on.
You can't deny any step of the way, so you deny the whole package.

Clever.


NOT!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:04 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:45 AM on February 3, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 :

Would you release all criminals whose crimes did not have an eyewitness?


If you're saying that you nonetheless have to come to that conclusion despite having no eyewitnesses, I'm saying -'Aren't you lucky there were no eyewitnesses or you'd have to reconsider your naturalistic fabulous tales.'
The fossils don't back you up. In fact fossils in principle can't back you up since they're all dead, have no date tags, and not one can be seen to be capable of turning into anything else. It's also not happening today nor is it possible genetically -so I guess that's all the evidence I need.

You on the other hand have to point to your lack of evidence, and your nonetheless firm conviction, as backup for your position.



Please answer the question, rather than avoiding it.


We know the answer, Lester would send someone to the gallows with far less evidence than has been presented for common descent, which he rejects.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:53 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2010 :
Hum... You might be right on this one... Let me think about it.




Hum... Yeah, i think "plausible" refers to what it looks like. If that's what it refers to, then i was wrong.

Edit: I had not read derwood's post with the definition.


1. having an appearance of truth or reason

Well played, Lester. I admit defeat. No buts.

(Edited by wisp 2/6/2010 at 2:01 PM).



A synonym for 'plausible' is 'believable', Merriam-Webster indicates that "possible" and "plausible" are 'related words.'

Possible refers to somethign which may or may not occur.
I've always used plausible as a notch above possible.  

Not that it really matters - one will note the laerge swath of material that Doctro Lester decided to totally ignore...
Pl


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:23 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:42 AM on February 3, 2010 :
DerwoodRight - much easier to swallow that some magical deity


Oh so now you're admitting that it's a matter of choice or which one you'd prefer to believe- and you find monkeys turning into men and mud arranging itself more likely than intelligence arranging matter?


It has always been a choice - but choosing magic for which there is zero supporitng evidence over observable natural processes is a poor choice.

But I like how you try to gloss over your actual belief so as not to make it appear to be as ridiculous as it really is.  For lets face it, it is not some benign 'intelligence' altering matter to form a human using apparently unknown and unknowable methods - it is a tribal deity breathing on dirt and a fully formed man popping out.  THAT is what your book says.


Because supernatural powers are much more rational than understood natural processes.


According to the actual experimental evidence, mud can't arrange itself into anything near life via natural processes - so you can dream on but it never happens and that is what the evidence shows.


Can you produce documentation that such an experiment has ever been done?

Or is that just the latest example of the 'Oh my gosh, they've got me! toss out out any old nonsense to slow them down!' creationist technique?

It's disingenuous or just outright dishonest that failures in the laboratory are mirepresented as successes in the textbooks.


Name one.

I've got several biology, molecular biology, etc., textbooks.  I suspect that, in reality, you people are the ones doing the misrepresenting.  As is usually the case.

I do wonder though how we should describe the inability of creationists to produce relaible, meaningful, quantifiable measures of 'information' in genomes?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:22 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
wisp
Hum... You might be right on this one... Let me think about it.

Hum... Yeah, i think "plausible" refers to what it looks like. If that's what it refers to, then i was wrong.

Edit: I had not read derwood's post with the definition.


1. having an appearance of truth or reason

Well played, Lester. I admit defeat. No buts.
A synonym for 'plausible' is 'believable', Merriam-Webster indicates that "possible" and "plausible" are 'related words.'

Possible refers to somethign which may or may not occur.
I've always used plausible as a notch above possible.
Me too. Like "probable".

"Possible" can have any probability, no matter how low it is. I thought "plausible" meant it had some probability worthy of consideration.

Not that it really matters
To me being intellectually honest matters, even in matters as petty as this one.

But yeah, Lester being right on something important doesn't sound plausible.

one will note the laerge swath of material that Doctro Lester decided to totally ignore...
Pl
Certainly. His dishonesty is astounding.

I wonder what he feels when he's reading something he can't refute (i mean, something he knows he can't refute). I wonder what goes through his head when he decides to ignore it.

Perhaps he has some special pneumonic mechanisms that make him forget what he just read if he can't find an answer to it.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:07 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.