Punctuated equilibrium vs spontaneous generation

With such substantial and unanswerable refutations of ToE, it is no wonder you are banned.

I was on the member list while banned and at the time the banning was "permanent."

What seems to have occured is that evos for many, many years claimed the fossil record essentially proved evolution, but that was BS.Some evos began to admit that the fossil record did not show what other evos said it did, and that their models of evolution were incorrect or needed tweaking and so they proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.Since that time, evos have more and more, when challenged, resorted to claiming the fossil record is inconsequential, that evolution has been fully supported as to be well nigh inconstestable based on other evidence, and in making such claims, basically weasel out of the fact that the fossil record appears to show the opposite of evolution.

Good point on species versus larger taxanomic groups, but I think you ignore the point that without seeing more transitions on the species level, the theorized transitionals between the larger groups is somewhat questionable.As an analogy, you can find look-alikes that are not related, but if you were to look at a large group of people, and spread them out over time, you'd make mistakes of putting people together as related, and thus creating "transitionals" when they do not exist.Of course, your response might be we could do genetic testing, and admittedly genetic research is some of the strongest evidence of evolution, but it does not negate the thorny problem, which many evos want to hide from, that the fossil record is grossly inconsistent with current evo models.It's a real problem, and evos hide from it by alternately refusing to deal with the fossil record in toto, and just come up with a paltry few potential "transitionals between major taxon" as if that can explain away the lack of data, and really the examples are not convincing. They often deal with just a bare few features, which could just be similarities in design or convergent evolution. It's only if you believe evolution had to have occurred does it seem to make sense. You really have to add faith into the equation. If you go on reason and skepticism, it doesn't add up at all, so much so that after awhile you cannot accept the explaining away of the fossil record. It is hard data that, imo, pretty much disproves current evo models.The other approach evos have started taking is to say the fossil record is not really necessary one way or the other for us to be confident in ToE.I realize you believe what you do, but I am speaking honestly here, and so are many who doubt ToE. It's not irrationality to reject ToE. It's taking an objective view to start with, and asking if the fossil data as a whole really works with the idea species only originate via mutation, variation and natural selection over time.

I don't credit anything to coincidence actually. PE was put forth to solve some serious problems in the lack of understanding within the evo community on what the fossil record shows and does not show. That lack of understanding is still often present imo, and the reason imo is that evos like to say what they believe the evidence says without closely looking at the evidence to see whether the data really says what they claim or not. In other words, they believe so strongly in ToE that they assume all the data agrees already and go as far as to include erroneous factual claims in teaching materials because they think, hey, this must be so.What I try to do here is go over the pieces of data without trying to mold the data into an overall theory and see what it says without built-in assumptions. I think if you and others would do that as well, you would see what I am talking about.Let's take jaws and teeth which are used prominently in evo models. Across a wide range, many creatures eat very similar things in terms of texture, hardness, etc,...A meat eater on one continent may eat a different animal, but it's still meat, and the same with plant eaters. There are some differences of course, but there is a strong commonality. Imo, this strong commonality can explain what you call "coincidences" or common decent.For example, it could be just that similar designs are in place for the jaw for some reptiles and mammals, not that one evolved from the other. Another viable explanation, something evos claim in other areas, would be convergent evolution, that after many years, reptiles evolved slightly different jaw structures because those jaw structures were better for eating meat, plants or whatever.This is the same for teeth. If a land mammal has similar teeth to a whale, there is no reason to think the land mammal is in the evolutionary line of the whale. It is just as likely that the teeth evolve into a form independently due to natural selection based on functionality and possibly similarity of diet in form and texture. Additionally, they could just be created or designed that way. To claim the data indicates solely common descent is inaccurate and not in concordance with a more measured, objective, scientific perspective based on facts, not wishful thinking.If you look very closely at the much vaunted claims of reptile to mammals, you see a lot of claims based on faulty assumptions. Within mammals, many evos are now saying the ear and inner bones evolved independently, and they say this because the evidence is against mutual common descent passing these traits on.Well, another explanation could just be they were created differently, but regardless of that, if we believe such detailed similarities can arise independently, then it is wrong to claim data showing similarity in other areas means creatures evolved from one to the other. The similarities evos claim can only mean reptiles evolved into mammals can just as rationally and easily be explained in other ways, which are more consistent with the fossil record I might add.In other words, evo models are based on overstatements and artificially twisting the data to only mean one thing.This message has been edited by randman, 11-16-2005 04:53 PM

I think you are wrong on PE. PE did not change paleontology. It was an attempt to fit evolutionary models into the fossil evidence.I also think I already answered you on the double-hinge. It is functional in design, right?

The answer could be the "lining up" is unreliable as scientists have been persuaded, as is endemic in ToE in the past, to essentially interpret data according to the existing paradigm and leave out data that does not fit, creating a self-fulfilling illusions. Personally, I think there is a good bit of this going on, and I base that on other areas where evos clung to false ideas for decades despite criticism and then finally lamented here and there.The other possibility is that some sort of progressive creation or ID-type of evolution is taking place so you see something causing species to appear, either via evolution or via creation, in a manner that leaves no fossil record of the transitions developing.Actually, a third possibility is somewhat metaphysical and without getting into too much detail could entail the past, present and future being influenced by the questions we ask of it, and that things, even the past, are not set in stone as we think. John Wheeler, a noted physicist, has suggested that the universe is "participatory" based on his work as a physicist and quantum physics, and thus suggests what we observe in the universe is partly the result of "the questions we ask of it" and thus our state of mind.It is not purely a metaphysical concept. Anton Zellinger takes this a little further and proposes the reason we see the physical universe as quantized is because information is quantized and uses that hypothesis to explain the curious behaviour of the quantum world.

The hallmark of evolutionist delusions and failures, when all else fails, attack the Bible.

Nah, John Wheeler and Anton Zellinger are not post-modernists, and unlike evos, back up their claims with hard experiments in the lab.

Flies, I've seen cladograms and understand them. I am not sure if you realize they are created by man's imagination, based on some evidence, that is true, but also based on assumptions.But cladograms would be a new topic so maybe your request which is a barely disguised insult would be better suited to a new thread.

Mark, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. No, once I realize an evo doesn't read or respond to my points, I generally don't read all of his.But your reversion to attacking the Bible is an indication that you have moved away from debating the science on this issue. So I will accept that as your concession of defeat.On the physics, I don't know where you get the idea anyone said energy is not quantized, and if you want to bash scientists, some who are giants in the field of physics, by all means go ahead, but you could at least bother to learn what they teach and beleive and the actual science behind what they claim, but then again, I don't expect you will.

I am not evading, but want to point out the basic state of mind of the person that thinks attacking the Bible is a good point.If he did not want to derail the discussion, he should not resort to that. Once it is clear the type of mentality we are dealing with, it seems proper to me to focus on that, and try to resolve that issue, either by having the poster recognize his error in creating a false dichotomy of the Bible versus his beliefs, or realizing fruitful discussion with such a person is not feasible because their logic is so anti-religiously oriented they have a hard time taking what you say at face value.Plus, I believe the resort to attacking the Bible is evidence he has a losing argument. I didn't see any valid points in his post worth discussing. He claims sound arguments are ad hoc, at least from my perspective, and thus refuses to address the substance of any of what I posted, and then tops it off attacking the Bible, as if he believes that makes his argument stronger.No, I think Mark's post indicates he hasn't clue as to what science and logic actually are, or once his beliefs are threatened, he resorts to a irrational mentality that thus loses the ability to understand basic things like attacking the Bible does not advance his theory.This message has been edited by randman, 11-18-2005 02:39 AM

I appealed to the history of the use and misuse of data withing the evo community. If you feel differently about that history, please know that others feel there is a tendency to make false claims as if they are facts before those facts are known. The initial depiction of Pakicetus with webbed feet is a good example. There was no reason at all to think Pakicetus had webbed feet. Nothing had been found to suggest that, but it sure made a more convincing argument if evos depicted Pakicetus with webbed feet, and so that's what we got.For the casual observer, this practice is so prevalent that it is difficult to rely, imo, on evo claims. That was my point, and I gave my evidence, and if you need more specific examples, I can give them as well, such as Haeckel's drawings, claiming human gill slits, Neanderthals as excessively ape-like, etc,... No, you are wrong on several points. First, your stance means theistic evolution cannot be true. Secondly, if the fossil record showed the transitions, then these hypotheses would be discredited. So you make a false claim to say they could be true no matter what the fossil record shows. In fact, people that think God exists and that accept evolutionary models and interpretation of the data, don't say ID or progressive creation is the answer but claim theistic evolution.It is the fossil record that points to no transitionals which begs the question of how did this occur. In other words, my stance is based on looking at the evidence, and the evo stance is based on ignoring the fossil evidence, imo. Maybe you haven't paid attention to the threads where I elaborate on this, and also the fact I was near banned for elaborating on this topic and since then only allude to aspects of it.

Except we are not talking of whether an interpretation is wrong in this context, but whether data can be trusted, and so the use of data in other areas of interpretation is valid when considering if data can fully trusted when put forth to make evo claims.Keep in mind I did not say it could not be trustedm but raise the issue since, imo, it is a valid concern. You asked for potential explanations concerning cladistics analysis, and I answered you.As to the rest of your post, you make no substantive points, but repeat bare assertions except one point, and unfortunately, is is where you demand I take the thread off-topic.

You are not getting the point, as usual I might add. You claim my claim fits with any facts. I pointed out where you are wrong, and where those that believe God-did-it, but accept ToE's take on the facts are theistic evos.I thought you could have seen that without having to spell it out.So that proves you are wrong. People that want to credit God do not are not all IDers.Why can't you see this?Let's stick with this before moving on to anything else. Why would you claim my position that the fossil record indicates an ID approach rather than standard evo models is something that exists regardless of any facts? Why can you now acknowledge that I am basing my beliefs on the facts as I see them?Also, do you think it was mere prejudice on my part to show where Pakicetus was presented with webbed feet?What? You don't believe that is what happened?This is what is so weird about discussing things with you guys. This is a fact, not prejudice. Evos presented Pakicetus with webbed feet/Do you, or do you not agree that it is a fact they presented Pakicetus with webbed feet?And if you agree, how can it be biasness to bring it up?