Summations Only

But you didn't quote them. You just cut-n-pasted their words into your message as if they were your own.--Percy

Have you considered that you may be wrong in understanding them? Why is it that those that interpret them as you do are so overwhelmingly Abrahamic in their faith? Do you think there might be a pattern?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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, : +

Your lie does not disprove evolution, because of being a lie.However, we may note that it would disprove evolution if it was true, and you yourself know this, which is why you tell it. So when you pretend that nothing would disprove evolution, you yourself know that you're talking crap. Your circular reasoning does not disprove evolution, because of it being a childish logical fallacy. The Flood does not disprove evolution, because of it being a made-up story for which no-one can find any evidence, and against which there is copious evidence. The idea that it "nicely accounts for the strata and the fossils" could only occur to someone so pitifully ignorant of geology as you are. Your lie does not disprove evolution, because of being a lie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Talk is cheap. Talking about talking is cheaper.I've shown you the fossils, stop being afraid and look at them. They show that the animals evolved. They directly refute your argument.Discussing quotes is just a distraction. That's so stupid it's retarded. Please try harder.

Regardless, it would still disprove evolution.

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.

He went further and even insinuated that they were his own words:

quote:

---

I'll say something about them:

​

The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change.

​

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.

​

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record.

​

The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.

​

Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large.

​

The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.

​

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed.

​

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.

​

If you want me to say more about the fossiles, just let me know. Glad to oblige.

---

It doesn't get much more bald-faced than that.

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.

Stephen Jay Gould, the guy who thought up P.E, that's who. Stephen Jay Gould, who says (in his essay Evolution As Fact And Theory) that transitional forms are "abundant" in the fossil record, who stated on oath that there were "many" of them in his testimony in McLean v. Arkansas, and who stated, again under oath, that "it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let's have some more of that authority Eliyahu likes so much."The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.

BfDAnd I'm sorry that you are unable to accept that your quote-mines are wrong.Unlike you, I have read some of those original works, and I have studied a good many of the fossils, as casts, of course. (Mrs. Ples -- now there's a real cutie!)There has been a recent debate in paleontology about the rate of evolution. That is what these authors are discussing.But creationists, ever hopeful, twist and manipulate their writings to make it seem that these paleontologists are saying something far different from what they are actually saying.Those creationist websites are lying, and you fell for it.Edited by Coyote, : minor add

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