Ancient bacteria with modern DNA, problem for evolution?

I'm just doing a quick review, I'll reopen it soon.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Randman,This thread is not about how "the evo solution is basically just to deny the evidence."This thread is not about how you think "the reasoning process of mainstream evolutionism is severely flawed and ignores data and reasoning."This thread is not about how "the ToE is an inherently non-falsifiable theory..."This thread is about ancient bacteria with modern DNA.By and large general observations and expressions of opinion are fine, but you are using threads as a vehicle not so much for discussion, though you do engage in some discussion, but more as opportunities to repeat your general observations and opinions. You are more than welcome to propose threads on any of these topics, and I will approve them as quickly as I can.In the future please confine yourself to addressing the topic. From here on I will be suspending your posting privileges for 24 hours each time you fail to do so.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Let's see, where to start. You're introducing one of your old favorite topics, Pakicetus. And you're questioning the integrity of your fellow members with implications of double-standards and hypocrisy.See you in 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

There's been a lot like this from you recently. I'd like to suggest that you might get better results, and be able to be here more consistently, if you think of this more as a team effort working constructively toward a common understanding.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Randman,I'm not sure whether it is best to reply as Admin or Percy, but I'll try Admin and hope for the best. This tells me that you're again trying to turn the topic to evolutionist misbehavior instead of discussing the topic. Lately, it would seem, no one can discuss anything with you without your rushing to judgment about evolutionist misbehavior. Given that nothing I've ever said has affected your behavior in the past, I will no longer try to persuade you to change. But if you don't change you will not be able to be here on a consistent basis. If you're already firm in this conclusion and are only interested from this point on in repeating this charge, then please stop participating in this thread. This thread is for discussion of the topic and not for accusing people of nonobjective thinking. Walking people through a logical analysis of why you think their thinking is non-objective is fine, but just stating it as a conclusion is not. You are confusing typical scientific reticence with dismissal. Awaiting replication is not dismissal. And the people you're discussing with are not the topic of this thread, so accusations of bias are off base. Not to involve myself in discussion of this topic as Admin, but I believe you are mistaken. Hasn't only Vreeland's group produced studies on this? A research group cannot do its own replication, you know. I explained this before. If you disagree with my analysis then you are free to present your own as rebuttal, but to just continue restating your initial misunderstanding over and over and over again seems willfully unconstructive.As I said earlier, Quetzal was only explaining that in science accepting unreplicated results would be like taking someone's word on just their say-so. He definitely did not state "...that peer-review articles are the equivalent of taking Vreeland's word..."I've spent enough time on this, you never listen anyway and I don't know why I bother, so here's the bottom line. Start spending your time discussing the topic and stop berating people or I will suspend you again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As Admin I am avoiding discussion of the topic and focusing on the Forum Guidelines. I will not be making decisions about who is right and wrong in the discussion. There is more than one way to handle frustration. In this particular case, you can continue to take your frustration out on those you're discussing with and face periodic involuntary absences, or you can follow the Forum Guidelines. Another possibility is to showcase you so that you are no longer subject to the Forum Guidelines. I actually think this latter possibility would be a good option for you. What do you think?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I have no idea where you got the idea I was asking you to avoid the topic of molecular dating. In this exchange I have hammered on how you have to follow the Forum Guidelines, stop berating people, and focus your attention on the topic.I seem unable to get my points across, and I don't want to expend more time moderating you, so I'm showcasing you. I'll move this thread there.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Randman has been showcased, meaning that among the debate forums he only has access to the [forum=-37] forum.Anyone desiring to discuss topics with Randman and who doesn't already have showcase access can apply at Showcase Forum Issues and Requests.I'm moving this thread to the Showcase forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Thread moved here from the Dates and Dating forum.

Hi Randman,Your skill at finding unintended meanings is way more powerful than my ability to overcome, so I won't attempt any further clarifications. You're here now, you can do what you want without fear of moderation.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

To Everyone,It occurred to me later that it would be a good idea to reply to Randman's last message, not for Randman's sake, because he will continue to make whatever misinterpretations are necessary for maintaining his own image of himself, but for everyone else. If I don't do so then Randman's message will be the last on the subject, perhaps leading some to conclude his misinterpretation is correct.This is the most important part that Randman doesn't seem to understand: Randman's reply indicates that he thinks I was saying that if he's convinced of his conclusions to stay off the thread. What I actually said (and I'll say it in slightly different words this time) was that if he's already firm in the conclusion to the point where he's only interested in repeating the charge and not in discussion that he should stop participating. I said this because he was engaging in a pattern of berating respondents, primarily Quetzal, with charges of inappropriate dismissal, ignoring research and dodging issues, and he would do it without actually addressing anything that was actually said. They would take this type of form (knowing Randman's proclivities, in case he replies let me state even more clearly that this is not intended as a direct quote. It's intended as an illustration of the style of his replies): Now, the person Randman is replying to probably provided some detailed explanation, but Randman rarely addresses them in any direct way, believing in his mind that everything he said previously was correct, and that therefore any rebuttal can be safely ignored, leaving him with only the task of pointing out that he has "already proven this." (again, not intended as a direct quote)And we see the same pattern, expressed variously, of course, over and over and over again. If this is the way Randman chooses to participate, then he will be restricted to Showcase. I could have instead left his permissions intact and continued following him around the threads issuing suspensions every so often, but this is very time consuming, especially if you're trying to be fair every time he's suspended by providing both documentation and explanation.Randman seems to be one of those people who believe that if he did it, it's right, and he's willing to defend his actions, no matter how indefensible, ad infinitum. So now he's here and he can do whatever he wants without fear of moderation. Anyone wishing to continue discussion with Randman can apply at Showcase Forum Issues and Requests.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director