Summations Only

Bs'dWhat if the sky falls down? Then we are all dead. I'll say something about them:The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know. Glad to oblige. What if you've misunderstood what they are saying? What if the teachers of your wisdom were just wrong?There's plenty of doubt to be had.Or does the above only hold true for others, and not for you?

Bs'dFantastic.Now please be kind enough to explain to me which part of my quote is wrong. That is not basically true, that's a lie. The fossil record shows that new species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed ancestors.No evolution to be seen. Or so you think. What is generally called "micro-evolution" is in fact recombination of existing genetic material. There is a limit to the amount of genetic material, therefore there is a limit to how much a certain species can change. They will stop to do so, as was found out during the research into mutation breeding:http://www.weloennig.de/...of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf"In accord with the law of recurrent variation, mutants in every species thoroughly examined (from pea to man) − whether naturally occurring, experimentally induced, or accidentally brought about − happen in a large, but nevertheless limited spectrum of phenotypes with either losses of functions or neutral deviations. Yet, in the absence of the generation of new genes and novel gene reaction chains with entirely new functions, mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."

Bs'dYou can find more HEREEnjoy!Edited by Eliyahu, : Just felt like it

Bs'dOK, just copy and paste a few here and we'll discuss them.

Bs'dYes it is. And that's because those people are all evolutionistic paleontologists or zoologists, or something like that, so they know much more about the subject than me. Therefore I quote them. If you want to know who exactly said what, then you can look HERE.

Bs'dSo what you are trying to say is, all those big evolutionists like Gould, Eldredge, and all the others mentioned HERE, who say with one voice that the fossil record shows only STASIS, and not evolution, they are all wrong, and only you are right.Sorry for not believing that.There is a very simple and irrifutable proof that my quotes are right, and that is the punctuated equilibrium theory.If the fossil record showed species turning into other species, who would need PE?PE is a desperate attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.Therefore PE says that the evolution happened very quickly in short burst, seperated by long periods of stasis, in geographically isolated regions.And that is why we cannot find any proof for it.Thus the evo's try to explain the fact that there is not the slightest proof for evolution in the fossil record.But, like I said, the fossil record is totally in line with creation, and disproves evolution.And that's just the way it is. "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. .... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.Richard Dawkins is very well known evolutionist en author and professor zoology at the Oxford university.Yes! I am DELIGHTED by the fossile record!HalleluJah!!

Bs'dDo you believe in very fast evolution?

Bs'dNo it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.

Bs'dSo what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.Sorry for having a hard time to accept that.

Bs'dAnd that's a claim made all the time by evo's when the facts don't agree with the theory.

Bs'dSo for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved?

The point is the word "rather".What the author says is: "In stead that they attacked the evo theory, they SILENTLY agreed that the fossil record was too poor to do anything but IN A GENERAL SORT OF WAY, supporting that evolution had happened.:So they didn't dare to stand up and tell the truth, but instead they half heatedly vaguely mumbled something about evolution, because if they would not have, their careers and jobs would have been on the line. More accurately; they would have been history.About this Eldredge said:
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44I repeat: We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years.And that is what the addition of that quote refers to, namely that the paleontologists should have stand up and challenged the evo theory, instead of mumbling that the fossile record somehow supported evolution.So back to the quote. Here is my quote, with in green the addition: So the first addition: "The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record." simply strengthens my point, it says that the fossile record shows that the species are individually distinct, and not a part of a unity that morphes into different species. So that only strengthens my quote, and in no way alters the meaning of it, or shows that the opposite is meant of what I claim.Second addition: "Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories."Same story as above, it strenghtens my point. It says that species for millions of years do not change throughout their histories, they only show STASIS.Third insertion: "Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated."Also this only strengthens my point, it goes into more detail about Darwin being troubled by the fossil record. Why was Darwin troubled by the fossil record? Because he realised that it shows the oppostite of evolution. No less than eight times in his "Origen of Species" he tells us to ignore the fossil record, because it does not confirm his theory.So also that insertion strengthens and supports my point, that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution.Fourth and last insertion: " Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved."This one is the easiest misunderstood, because it says that the paleontologists in a silent way admitted that somehow, "in a general sort of way", the fossil record supported the basic thesis of evolution. But seen in the foregoing context, it is clear that this is a condemnation of that behavior,So bottom line is: The additons, or the parts left out in my quote, in no way alter the meaning of my quote. The insertions do not change the meaning of the quote to the opposite, as some troubled souls here are saying, in fact, they do nothing than strengthening my point.So why were those points left out? Because people nowadays can only handle sound bites. Everything that requires an attention span of more than 5 seconds is wasted on them.I'm not saying I'm different, it's just the reality we live in, and the reason for clipping those quotes.So, having proved that the quotes are: letter for letter correct, and that the parts left out or the broader context in no way alters the meaning of the quotes, we can conclude that the unproven accusations here on the board, hurled at somebody who has the unbelievable audicity to quote some evolutionistic scientist, are unfounded.To be more specific and to addres the individual silly notions hurled over the board here: The quotes are not distortins and misrepresentations of what the authors said.They are not "ignorant defamation of character". They are not "dishonest and taken out of context". I am not trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say. I'm not misusing them and I'm not going to burn in Hell while Satan spits the word LIAR! in my face for all eternity." (I really like that one )
I'm not commiting the sin of omission which is supposed to be typical for creationists, and my sources are not lying to me.I don't portray their meaning in a false way, and my usage of them is not a lie. I don't obfuscate and ignore their true meaning, and my usage of authority is not invalid.And last but not least, those quotes don't employ deception.Up till here a small sample of what has been thrown around on this board.Looks silly what? If you see it all together this way.The question is; "What evokes such obviously non-sensical, irrational, verbal abuse?"Why do evo's react on citations of high calibre evolutionsts like a bull on a red rag?Why do they start foaming at the mouth and get a red haze in front of their eyes when they are confronted with the facts of life?Or more accurately stated: When they are confronted with the facts about the fossil record?The anser is of course, because they realise that that rips apart there dearly held believe system, that all we really are is animals, and we can do whatever we feel like, without having to give a reckoning to a Higher Authority.Sorry guys, but that's just the way it is."Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion .... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. .... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: Sudden Origins, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
'Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. SchwartzEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : Nothing better to doEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : reason: Striving for perfectionEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dIn those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.You coming up with some pictures is not going to change that.You ignoring those facts is just distraction."The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured .... ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ .... their story has been suppressed."Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University

Bs'dWell, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.Would that disprove the ET according to you?"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.

Bs'dThere we go, suddenly it is not a problem anymore.Silly putty."Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s postulate of gradualism .... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_MayrEdited by Eliyahu, : Reason: Why not?