Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent
xevolutionist, do you still agree with Raup? Raup was asking a very simple question, "can natural selection cause the changes we see in the fossil record". The answer is NO, speciation causes the changes we see in the fossil record, which explains why very few transitions between species are seen.
Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime? Or postulated that if his theory were true, there would be an abundance of them? Or are you saying that no evolutionists will admit to the fact that there are none.
I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect.
Use evidence instead of others' conclusions, especially conclusions taken out of context.
How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?
Wait a moment - a few pages ago you were arguing that all scientists blindly support without question any evidence that supports evolutionary theory. Now you state that scientists have different views. Which is it?
Your argument seems to be this: Scientists agree, which makes their conclusions suspect. Scientists disagree, which makes their conclusions suspect.
In other words, you find all scientific conclusions suspect.
Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining?
The quote is taken out of context to imply something the writer did not intend. See loudmouth's explanation of your first quote for an example of why what you did was "quote-mining" and not "quoting".
Does that mean that the quote is any less valid?
Yes. It is taken out of context to mislead.
Quotes should not be used as evidence in a scientific debate anyway, except perhaps to define historical context.
New sub species have appeared, not new species. If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. No wonder there is little agreement in evolutionist circles, other than it must have happened.