Summations Only

And curiously, you have been told that this is not the general expectation, that even Darwin suggested alternatives and reasons for it.Plus this was shown to be outright false in Message 5:

quote:

---

web.archive.org/web/19990203140657/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html

​

quote:

---

EVOLUTION AT SEA COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES
Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

​

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

​

Punctuated equilibrium holds that new species may arise fairly quickly (over thousands instead of millions of years) from small animal populations that somehow become isolated. Intermediate stages are too fleeting to become fixed in the fossil record--thus the conspicuous gaps or so-called missing links. (Darwin blamed the "imperfection in the geological record" for the gaps in the fossil record.)

​

But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.

---

​

oops.

---

There you have a fossil record of actual gradual evolution over time from 65 million years ago to today, complete with intermediates and other aspects predicted by evolution.Your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted. This too was shown to be an outright false statement in Message 5:

quote:

---

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html

​

quote:

---

​

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

​

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

​

oops again eh?

---

This image shows smooth transitions from generation to generation, it shows "arbitrary speciation" (where difference occur sufficient to make the population different from the ancestral population through phylogenic evolution) and it shows "absolute speciation" where a breeding population divides into two distinct species.Again, your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted. And this too has been shown to be outright false in Message 63:

quote:

---

When we look at fossils like the Therapsids we not only see a progression from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear, we see several intermediate forms where the jaw is double jointed -- one at the reptile location and one at the new mammal location. Functional intermediates.

​

quote:

---

The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. ...

​

... it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian: ...

​

In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. In describing a member of this group known as Diarthrognathus, paleontologists Colbert and Morales point out: "The most interesting and fascinating point in the morphology of the ictidosaurians (at least, as seen in Diarthrognathus) was the double jaw articulation. In this animal, not only was the ancient reptilian joint between a reduced quadrate and articular still present, but also the new mammalian joint between the squamosal and dentary bones had come into functional being. ...

​

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. ...

---

​

This is the process of evolution demonstrated in spades in the fossil record.

---

Again, your claim is falsified -- shown to be false -- invalidated -- refuted.The fact that you have chosen to repeat these assertions after Message 5 and Message 63 without demonstrating that either Message 5 or Message 63 are in any way false, shows an intellectual dishonesty and a person that is arrogantly ignorant of reality, incapable of honest debate.If you are going to argue against a world of evidence I suggest that you become familiar with that world first.But you've made your mudpile now, and you can wallow in it to your hearts content and enjoy the view as much as you like. The real world will progress happily without you, unaffected in any way by your opinions and beliefs.We know your claims are false, we know that you have lied, and we know that you have no argument other than old cherry-picking quote-mines and tired false innuendos.

Fail.Do you know what it is like to submit an article to a peer reviewed journal (pick a science of your choice -- I won't say expertise as you haven't exhibited any)?And I know that one of your references is false. The context of the scientific papers show that what was discussed was gradualism vs non-gradualism, the context of the scientific papers does NOT show that evolution has not been observed anywhere in the fossil record, and the context of the scientific papers does not lead to the conclusion that evolution has never been observed in the fossil record.The context does not alter the meaning of the quotes when you deal with them honestly. Message 5, Message 63 and Message 83 ALL show evolution occurring in the fossil record in several ways.What you don't seem to understand is that these FACTS in the fossil record showing evolution occurring eviscerate your argument no matter how many quotes you stand up on cardboard figures.Again, science is not run by opinion, it is run by evidence and testing. Every fossil find is a test of evolution and not one fossil has invalidated the theory of evolution: This has been tested and tested and tested and not one test has shown up the slightest discrepancy.Again I observe your inability\unwillingness to deal with the evidence of evolution in the fossil record that I have provided, and your intellectually shallow attempt to side-step this and pretend that these posts do not exist.Your readers will know that your lack of response to the evidence is inadequate at best, and clearly exhibits self-delusion.

It certainly is all I-lie-to-you has to offer, based on his repeated posts on this thread and his failure to engage the evidence that eviscerates his claims.

And it most certainly will not be done by cherry picking quote-mines.

Here's a thought for you Eliyahu,If I were going to discuss the stories in the Torah ...... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or... would I do better to read the Torah?And if I were going to discuss what was or was not in those stories ...... would I do better to read quotes from people that read it, or... would I do better to read the Torah?Just askinEdited by RAZD, : +

Can you please cite the book and chapter where he discusses genetic causes Faith? Transitional have been found, so that prediction was filled.In fact this was part of the prediction for finding Tiktaalik -- the proper ecological location, the proper age for a transitional species from marine to terrestrial animal: transitional found.Then there are the Pelycodus fossils:A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus

quote:

---

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.

---

You can see evolution generation by generation, transitioning from a single species at the bottom to two reproductively isolated species at the top.Each level show transitional fossils intermediate between the layer below and the layer above, every one of those fossils are transitional. Can you please cite the book and chapter where he discusses how many transitionals should be found Faith?How many are needed to show\demonstrate that species transition from one form to another?When we look at fossils like the Therapsids we not only see a progression from reptile jaw and ear to mammal jaw and ear, we see several intermediate forms where the jaw is double jointed -- one at the reptile location and one at the new mammal location. Functional intermediates.

quote:

---

The reptiles, as we have noted, have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw, and mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. On the other hand, the jaw joints in the reptile are formed from different bones than they are in the mammalian skull. ...

​

... it can be clearly seen in a remarkable series of fossils from the Triassic therapsids. The earliest therapsids show the typical reptilian type of jaw joint, with the articular bone in the jaw firmly attached to the quadrate bone in the skull. In later fossils from the same group, however, the quadrate-articular bones have become smaller, and the dentary and squamosal bones have become larger and moved closer together. This trend reaches its apex in a group of therapsids known as cynodonts, of which the genus Probainognathus is a representative. Probainognathus possessed characteristics of both reptile and mammal, and this transitional aspect was shown most clearly by the fact that it had TWO jaw joints--one reptilian, one mammalian: ...

​

In a slightly later group, known as the ictidosaurians, the mammalian part of the double jaw joint seen in Probainognathus was strengthened, while the old reptilian part was beginning to become reduced in size. In describing a member of this group known as Diarthrognathus, paleontologists Colbert and Morales point out: "The most interesting and fascinating point in the morphology of the ictidosaurians (at least, as seen in Diarthrognathus) was the double jaw articulation. In this animal, not only was the ancient reptilian joint between a reduced quadrate and articular still present, but also the new mammalian joint between the squamosal and dentary bones had come into functional being. ...

​

Thus, the fossil record demonstrates, during the transition from therapsid reptile to mammal, various bones in the skull slowly migrated together to form a second functional jaw joint, and the now-superfluous original jaw bones were reduced in size until they formed the three bones in the mammalian middle ear. The reptilian quadrate bone became the mammalian incus, while the articular bone became the malleus. ...

---

This is the process of evolutionary transitions demonstrated in spades in the fossil record. Correct, fantasy opinion does not affect any science, only facts affect science. um, just like your Grand Canyon fantasies? I'll have to remember this insightful refutation ... And yet not one species has been observed to appear de novo anywhere at any time, no one species has a form that is uniquely new in arrangement ... no one species has DNA that is not linked to other species ...... and then there is the issue of Silly Design.... or the problem of the appearance of design in the eye of the beholder -- especially one without a complete knowledge of what they are looking at. Which of course you have been told thousands of times is not how evolution works. Willful ignorance is not a valid basis for argument, Faith. What science finds is that selection between different traits caused by "physical and chemical accidents" is sufficient for species to adapt to their ecologies. Curiously it was Dawin's insight that natural selection operated in essentially the same manner as the controlled selection of animal husbandry, and that this was sufficient to explain the fossil record. You really should stop describing your argument regarding the Grand Canyon in this thread Faith, this is about the fossil record and how it shows evolution occurred. Where "descent" has the meaning in descendant -- the offspring of the breeding populations rather than going down stairs.And this has been observed to occur! And we have fossil evidence of this occurring! (see above). Who woulda thunk!We can see the process of evolution going on in virtually all breeding populations of all living species, and we have seen instances of speciation and reproductive isolation that then allows independent descent of the daughter populations in different ecologies, accumulating more adaptations to the different ecologies as the generations pass. Actually he formed a theory based on lots of evidence Faith. Perhaps you should read his books instead of making up fantasies, not that you will pay any attention to any corrections of your misimpressions. No theory is ever proven, another item you have been told a thousand times but choose to ignore ... because it is too dangerous to really understand science eh? ROFLOL, you really are an amusing comedienne Faith. Ignore reality and then make up stuff to suit your fantasy -- isn't that (what do you call that ... oh yeah) Good one.Tell me Faith -- how would we distinguish one breed of dogs from another without names?Names make discussion easier and more practical, they are key to knowing that we are talking about the same things. You use names for all the different layers in the Grand Canyon formations -- they are all just randomly assigned names, not precise descriptions of what the layers are. The names are defined to pertain to the layers with a precise description so that they can then be discussed without needing to repeat the descriptions every time you want to talk about them.Tell me Faith ... how does using names to define different groups in any way affect what is discussed other than making discussion simpler?This is the best argument you have against evolution? Denial, muddled thinking, misrepresentations and ranting about names??? Really?Epic fail.

Pelycodus, Message 5, shows speciation. Foraminifera, Message 5, shows 65 million years of continual evolution. Gould agreed. How come there is no single point in time where all species are created? Or even two species at the same time? Why is it more of a continual process over time?How is that consistent in any way with bible\torah\koran stories?Why are fossils of mammals (to say nothing of man) not found with the fossils from the first life to some 70 million years ago and hominids only in the last 10 million years, Homo sapiens in the last 200,000 years?How is that consistent in any way with bible\torah\koran stories?Curiously I wonder if you know what "consistent" means ... Again this claim was falsified in Message 5, and your continued denial\ignoring of this fact does not make your argument any more valid than it was then ... when it was demonstrated to be invalid. Repeating it is just silly delusion. More cherry-picked quote mining. Once again you are caught red-handed quoting from some creationist site rather than from an original reading of the book:Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"

quote:

---

"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." (Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1996, pp. 229-230)

​

While it can be gleaned from this quote, it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record.

​

The part in the ellipsis is an explanation for this, as follows:

​

"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'."

​

- J. (catshark) Pieret

---

In other words ... your quote-mine does not tell the full story and meaning -- it is a misrepresentation. And because your usage exactly matches that found on other sites, your claim of making the quotes yourself is demonstrably false.Note please that Dawkins is and has been an ardent spokesman against punk-eek -- that the time scales are still measured in hundreds of years during the introduction of new species.Curiously I wonder that you lie and deceive so much when you could just cite actual evidence if your argument had any real validity. All you have are third hand misquotes of opinions and not a single fact. Sad. Pathetic.Why do you need to lie?Edited by RAZD, : +

Not quite, what they are saying is that the fossil record shows period of slow and fast evolution. Curiously if you actually read the articles and actually understood what they meant, you too would know this. But it seems you like to get your quotes second or third hand and predigested by creationist pap sites. Which is not a big surprise seeing as you seem to be having a hard time accepting the reality of the fossil record showing evolution as shown in Message 5, Message 63, and repeated in Message 83. Let me remind you: It is becoming clearer and clearer that this last definition is applicable here. Other definitions would be open to learning and correcting your belief or opinion.Curiously your delusional inability to accept things does not hamper reality in any substantial way. All it demonstrates is a blind willingness to be foolish, ignorant and deceived. Perhaps you can see how silly your quote mining project is when discussing the reality of evolution ... or perhaps you will be a delsuional hypocrite here as well.

Or let's hear Dawkins discussing the very words the I-Lie-To_you quotes:Presenting his book "The Greatest Show on Earth"

When you are delusional you ignore the world around you and live in your delusional world.His "response" to Message 5 was Message 31: And he is intellectually incapable of considering a third possibility: that the evidence is real and valid evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.He is stuck in a pathetic delusional rut where selected quotes are real and evidence is false.Pretty sad eh?

Hi Fizz57 and welcome to the fray. Does it matter? All Eliyahu has posted is a series of quotes taken out of context, followed by refusing to admit that the context when provided properly shows that evolution occurs by fits and starts rather than gradually. He claims Darwin only theorized gradual evolution, which is false, and he claims that stasis disproves evolution, which it of course doesn't. He appears to think that stasis occurs with no evolution at all (false) and that the rapid evolution of new species would have to be the "hopeful monster" ... not realizing that this occurs over many generations in reproductive isolation.There is so much evidence for evolution in the fossil record, but he won't confront actual evidence that his thesis is false -- see Message 5 and Message 31 -- and he doesn't change his song and dance.He says there is no evidence of evolution and then claims that evidence of evolution is either faked or a fraud.All in all, a rather pathetic sad delusional behavior after a while. And this is what religious indoctrination can do to an otherwise useful mind when reality is denied.One rather hopes that he is a Poe ... Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/114

quote:

---

Ignorance Is No Crime

​

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." ...

​

I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under 'insane' but which can be more sympathetically characterised by a word like tormented, bullied or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid and not wicked, can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding (or misunderstanding) of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. ...

---

To which I add deluded and confused.Notice that he goes on to talk about how some people seem almost tortured by the conflict between their belief and the reality of evolution. This, of course, is Cognitive Dissonance in operation, and this also predicts the behavior of people to attempt resolution of their dissonance while maintaining their conflicted beliefs: attack the messenger bearing contrary evidence, claim the contrary evidence is fraudulent or a hoax, seek confirmation from other believers rather than from the world as a whole, etc etc etc.

Mostly that they are in different age layers so they occurred at different times in the fossil record. Not very satisfactory I know, but this is the main problem with arbitrary speciation -- where do you take the differences from generation to generation and draw a line to say x is one species but y is another.I would in fact be rather surprised if a Pelycodus in one layer would be unable to breed with ones in either the layer above or the layer below if they were living at the same time.This is the basic problem with nomenclature and phyletic evolution.However at the top you have two species that show separation and the lack of intermediate forms between them at the same age level indicate failure to interbreed. In this case you have divergent speciation and very little question of where they are different.Now one could create a metric from the minimal differences for divergent speciation and apply that to phyletic speciation ... but it would still tend to be arbitrary concerning where you start..Does that help?

Again science is not based on people and what they say, it is based on the scientific method and what the evidence says.In Message 5 I showed you two cases where the fossil record showed gradual transition over time from species to species complete with speciation events.What this shows is that Darwin at worst was not completely right or wrong in this regard.Your continued posting of the same quotes is nothing more than willful ignorance, denial and a sad inability to confront the fact that your thesis is invalid in many ways.The fact that you need to continue to lie about this just demonstrates how bankrupt your position is: you have no evidence for your belief and you need to lie about the evidence for evolution in order to maintain your belief. When confronted by evidence, as in Message 5, you conclude that it must be a hoax (Message 31) in order to shield your precious belief from reality.Thank you for demonstrating how dishonest and intellectually bankrupt your creationism is.Perhaps you would like to deny the age of the earth next?Or that the earth is round? That the earth orbits the sun?

Now lets put them in chronological order, complete with the missing parts of the quotes, to show how the view of evolutionary pace and action has changed over time, and how the fossil record shows evolution occurred.