Why are there no human apes alive today?

We have found lots.Someone has been lying to you.To be precise, a creationist has been lying to you.

Stuff that creationists have made up may be common but it is not knowledge.

{Irrelevant sniping hidden - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide message, added message.

So, you claim not to be dishonest. What, then, is your reason for telling such dreadful lies about Gould's opinions? Gould suggested stupidity as the alternative --- but perhaps there is a third possibility that he didn't think of.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Of course. He's not insane.

This is, of course, not true.This is why paleontologists, who, unlike you, spend their lives studying the fossil record, do not agree with your fantasies about the fossil record.

Jonathan Wells is not a professional biologist. He works for the Discovery Institute: he's a professional creationist propagandist. He has achieved various academic qualifications, of which he has written: "Father's [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."Yes, he's a "Moonie", and yes, his only reason for seeking out qualifications was because his cult leader thought that they would give him more credibility in disseminating creationist propaganda, not because he wanted to acquire knowledge.You write "many within the field" --- but your one example is not actually within the field. He's a religious zealot who has contributed nothing to biology.Even if we were to count him as "within the field", he is not "many". He's one crank adhering to a cult which even you must find ridiculous.

And this evidence is, of course, abundant, which is why, despite all the misinterpreted quotations out of context you can muster, every paleontologist in the world thinks you're talking crap.

Polyploid speciation?Surely all biologist know that species can arise suddenly, because this can be observed. Also, they all know that this has nothing to do with the halfwitted garbage that Peg has attached to this about how "life started elsewhere and landed here on a meteorite".Is there any idea that can't pass through a creationist mind and come out the other end as crap?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

To be a professional biologist, you have to work as a biologist. It's character assassination to say that someone works for a creationist organization? Yeah, it guess it is. Nonetheless, it's true. He is writing what the Moonies are saying. There's a difference.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. Indeed, part of their faith involves rejecting the most fundamental truths of biology. You don't need solid credentials in a subject to be wrong about it. "Father" Sun Myung Moon may know bugger-all about biology, but he can still persuade his followers to talk nonsense about it --- after all, he's got them convinced that he's the Second Coming of Jesus, and, as the actual Jesus said, who swallows a camel and strains at a gnat?---My point, in case you missed it, was that one can hardly cite Wells as representative of a shift in biological thought. He first became a cult member, then, because the cult leader ordered him to, he got a PhD in biology the better to serve the propagandizing mission of the cult.

Intermediate forms are abundant in the fossil record. Honest paleontologists think that creationism is crap. I presume you intended that sentence to be written in the English language. But your meaning is somewhat obscure.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is very relevant when the pertinence of your argument hinges on his status. You wrote: Obviously Wells' words would have been of no particular interest if he was, for example, a professional pastry chef. Your whole point was: "Look, look, here's someone with status who's saying what I want to hear". The entire relevance of the quotation rested on his status.Therefore, it is worthwhile examining his status. The fact that he has a PhD in biology does, in fact, make his words more relevant than those of a pastry chef. But the fact that he only got his PhD because his cult leader ordered him to get it so that he could more effectively propagandize against evolution somewhat undercuts that: for his views on evolution do not result from any biological research, but from joining a cult in which the cult leader and self-proclaimed Messiah told him what his views ought to be.

Oh look, you're talking about his status again.Do you have any sources for this claim? Only it doesn't mention this in Wells's Wikipedia biography; the NAS does not have "fellows", it has "members"; and although membership, once elected, is for life, I can't find his name using the search engine provided by the NAS to search their list of members.Also, they only elect scientists with considerable scientific achievements under their belts.

Splendid. Please tell us which is which. Thank you.