Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(3)
Message 151 of 342 (718197)
02-05-2014 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:15 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
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.
This is where your logic goes sideways.
Suppose scientists do admit that fossils only support evolution "in a general sort of way". You are still wrong in TWO separate ways:
  1. If the fossil record doesn't conclusively prove evolution, that doesn't mean it DISproves evolution. Lack of evidence for Bigfoot doesn't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It only fails to prove that he does exist.
  2. There are many, many, many, many OTHER lines of evidence, completely independent of fossils, which also support evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:15 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM ringo has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 152 of 342 (718203)
02-05-2014 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Percy
02-05-2014 7:29 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Unless you believe in "hopefull monsters", evolution is gradual.
"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."
Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23
David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: David M. Raup - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 02-05-2014 7:29 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 1:26 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 02-05-2014 1:48 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 2:31 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 153 of 342 (718206)
02-05-2014 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:36 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Unless you believe in "hopefull monsters", evolution is gradual.
According to whom?
Or are you just a couple of centuries out of date?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:36 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 154 of 342 (718207)
02-05-2014 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
02-05-2014 11:13 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
This is where your logic goes sideways.
Suppose scientists do admit that fossils only support evolution "in a general sort of way".
Bs'd
They don't do that anymore. They did that for more than 100 years, saying that the fossil record supports evolution, while they knew very well it did not.
In plain English we call that: "deliberate lying to the public."
But Eldredge and Gould stopped the lies:
" .... 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. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about."
Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44
And yes, that is really a bizar situation, a whole segment of science lying to the public in order to push evolution. That is not only bizar, that's disgusting!
You are still wrong in TWO separate ways:
If the fossil record doesn't conclusively prove evolution, that doesn't mean it DISproves evolution. Lack of evidence for Bigfoot doesn't prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. It only fails to prove that he does exist.
If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.
If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record. There are now hudreds of millions fossiles in musea all over the world, and guess what: No evolution.
That is strong proof of no evolution.
There are many, many, many, many OTHER lines of evidence, completely independent of fossils, which also support evolution.
No there is not. The people telling you that are the same type of people who lied to you for more than hundred years about the fossil record supporting evolution.
The fossil records is in agreement with creation, and totally disproves evolution.
And that is delightfull for me. As Dawkins confirms:
"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.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 02-05-2014 11:13 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 1:31 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 156 by edge, posted 02-05-2014 1:34 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 157 by Coyote, posted 02-05-2014 1:35 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-05-2014 1:58 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 161 by frako, posted 02-05-2014 4:57 PM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 02-06-2014 10:49 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 155 of 342 (718208)
02-05-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
The fossil records is in agreement with creation, and totally disproves evolution.
So, creationism tell us why there are no human fossils in the Cambrian System?
News to me.
And that is delightfull for me. As Dawkins confirms:
"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.
Do you actually read the material that you post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 156 of 342 (718209)
02-05-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.
If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record. There are now hudreds of millions fossiles in musea all over the world, and guess what: No evolution.
That is strong proof of no evolution.
Are you a Poe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 157 of 342 (718210)
02-05-2014 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
BfD
Did your last quite in the above post leave out the following?
quote:
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
And does that missing bit suggest that the topic of discussion was only the period prior to 600 million years ago?
Edited by Coyote, : Forgot the "BfD"

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 158 of 342 (718212)
02-05-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:36 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Eliyahu writes:
But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution?
Bs'd
Unless you believe in "hopeful monsters", evolution is gradual.
Yes, evolution is gradual on the everyday timescales we're familiar with, minutely gradual, in fact. And except for drift evolution won't produce change while adaptive forces remain constant, so relatively unchanging environments produce little to no evolutionary change. And when adaptive forces do change then evolutionary change will be gradual, taking thousands of years for change sufficient to produce noticeable differences to accumulate.
But the timescale of the paleontological record is tens of thousands of years, and Eldredge is a paleontologist. He's explaining why that gradualism isn't reflected on paleontological timescales. When recorded on geologic timescales of tens of thousands of years, evolution often appears episodic.
AbE: Forgot to mention, you're description of David Raup (not Raub - you even included the typo) is an unattributed cut-n-paste.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : AbE.
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:36 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 159 of 342 (718213)
02-05-2014 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


The statements of scientists conclusively disprove Eliyahu's lies
But Eldredge and Gould stopped the lies:
"In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16.
"Our theory holds, as a defining statement, that ordinary allopatric speciation, unfolding gradually at microevolutionary scales, translates to punctuation in geological time." --- Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am - for I have become a major target of these practices." --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
"Stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must be confronted - and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic notion of evolution itself." --- Niles Eldredge, Time Frames
"My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s. [...] this new picture is not un-Darwinian, let alone anti-Darwinian. [...] I confess that I am a true Darwinist." --- Nile Eldredge, Confessions of a Darwinist.
"Q: Does the fossil record provide evidence for the existence of transitional forms?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Are there many such examples?
A: Yes, there are." --- Stephen Jay Gould, sworn testimony in McClean v. Arkansas.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory
"I think they [creationists] proceed by misquotation, by selective quotation, and by invoking supernatural intervention to produce the basic kinds of life, all of which are not only unscientific, but represent skill and rhetoric rather than science." --- Stephen Jay Gould, sworn testimony in McClean v. Arkansas.
If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record. There are now hudreds of millions fossiles in musea all over the world, and guess what: No evolution.
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
"The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.
And that is delightfull for me. As Dawkins confirms:
"If only they'd look at the facts, they'd soon discover that we have a rich supply of intermediate fossils." --- Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 342 (718214)
02-05-2014 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 12:36 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Unless you believe in "hopefull monsters", evolution is gradual.
You don't even have the most basic and slightest clue as to what Punctuated Equilibrium is, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 12:36 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 12:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 161 of 342 (718231)
02-05-2014 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Eliyahu
02-05-2014 1:27 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
.... 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. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about.
Again with the quote mining you really dont quit do you?
actual quote
"And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life. We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like.
"Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and 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. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."
So now we see that eldrige agrees that evolution accures, he just wants palaeontologist to be explicit about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady but rapid and static in turns. qhile your quote mine would lead us to believe in some conspiracy to promote evolution. In you own words you are lying to push creationism not only disturbing but DISGUSTING !!!
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.
LOL how does that quote confirm creation, let me give you a quote from J. (catshark) Pieret to help you uunderstand since you like quotes so much.
"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
No there is not. The people telling you that are the same type of people who lied to you for more than hundred years about the fossil record supporting evolution.
Do you know what a retroviral insertion in the genome means. It means that some virus embedded its DNA in a random spot in the creatures DNA and that dna got passed on to its offspring. If say humans and chimps are not related then we should not see any matching insertions. But we do several in fact, in the exact same spot an impossible feat if we are not related.
How does your magic man explain that?
Some fields that support evolution with their findings:
Biochemistry
Comparative anatomy
Biogeography
Comparative embryology
Molecular biology
Paleontology (duh the one you are fighting against with quote mines)
some experiments and observations that support evolution
Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)
A new plant species , created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967)
Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.
Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.
Vestigial and atavistic organs - E.g. Leg and pelvic bones in whales, dolphins, and some snakes; unused eyes in blind cave fish, unused wings in flightless birds and insects; flowers in non-fertilizing plants (like dandelions); in humans, wisdom teeth, tailbones, appendix, the plantaris muscle in the calf (useless in humans, used for grasping with the feet in primates).
I can go on but you will just ignore it and paste another mined quote

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Eliyahu, posted 02-05-2014 1:27 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:39 AM frako has replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 162 of 342 (718302)
02-06-2014 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by New Cat's Eye
02-05-2014 2:31 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You don't even have the most basic and slightest clue as to what Punctuated Equilibrium is, do you?
Bs'd
Yes I do. It says that evolution took place in far away places, small isolated places, and the evolution there went relatively fast. And that, according to the PE theory, is the reason that we cannot find any proof for evolution in the fossil record, because it happened in small far away places, very fast.
So the PE theory is an attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
This is what an expert says about the punctuated equilibrium theory:
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. .... The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."
Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59
Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
Robert E
So PE is the proof that there is no evolution to be seen in the fossil record, because if there was, there would be no need to come with forced explanations about why we cannot find any evolution in the fossil record.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Coyote, posted 02-06-2014 12:05 AM Eliyahu has replied
 Message 164 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-06-2014 12:10 AM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 02-06-2014 6:41 PM Eliyahu has not replied
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-07-2014 12:30 PM Eliyahu has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 163 of 342 (718303)
02-06-2014 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 12:01 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You still have not responded to Post 5, which shows you are wrong.
Can we look forward to a response to that nice figure in Post 5 anytime soon?
Or are you just stuck in a rut with quote-mining?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 12:01 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 1:52 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 02-06-2014 9:22 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 342 (718305)
02-06-2014 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Eliyahu
02-06-2014 12:01 AM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So the PE theory is an attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.
We all know you're lying, remember?
HELLO?
Earth to Eliyahu.
We all KNOW you're lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Eliyahu, posted 02-06-2014 12:01 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Eliyahu
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 288
From: Judah
Joined: 07-23-2013


Message 165 of 342 (718313)
02-06-2014 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by frako
02-05-2014 4:57 PM


Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
So now we see that eldrige agrees that evolution accures, he just wants palaeontologist to be explicit about the fact that evolution is not slow and steady but rapid and static in turns. qhile your quote mine would lead us to believe in some conspiracy to promote evolution. In you own words you are lying to push creationism not only disturbing but DISGUSTING !!!
Bs'd
What part of the following is it that you don't understand?
"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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by frako, posted 02-05-2014 4:57 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by frako, posted 02-06-2014 5:51 AM Eliyahu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024