Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Hercules Rockefeller, Mar 7, 2012.
care to address the links to "science", "pnas", and "sciencedaily" ?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
What's to address? They work, they're interesting if you're interested in the subjects, so far so good.
Your "science" article shows exactly why quote mining is bad. You never even read the article, did you?
You were also given links with direct quotes from the author of the "science" article, explaining what they meant and you disregarded it. You are unable to understand the mere basics of evolution, nor can you understand that fossils actually are all transitional fossils..
You are quoting passages of books and articles that you have never read, do not understand what they are talking about and then taking those one liner's completely out of context and trying to prevent it as proof of why evolution should not be 'believed'.. In short, you are being intellectually dishonest.
And let me guess...
You think Nessie is proof that evolution is wrong?
yes, i did.
the author of the "science" article was lewin.
there was nothing offered in this thread authored by him explaining anything.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
then maybe you can explain why at least 2 respected sources allude to the absence of transitional fossils.
i've never quoted any passage from any book.
in reference to goulds bio i have read that and posted the link to the entire article.
the only article i haven't read is the survey presented to "science" from PSU.
you do not know what i do and do not understand.
believed is quite right bells.
my argument in this matter is fully backed by respected sources.
tell it to the sources authors bells.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
evolution is fact
look at how viruses and bacteria react to the micro-enviroment in which they are placed , they adapt , change and move on
adaptation is a fact.
whether that process can be applied to macroevolution is a very big question mark.
ask hercules rockefeller what the chicago conference concensus was in regards to this matter.
What is it that you want to see, precisely?
Are you looking for a Crocoduckopus?
Which is why you can only link that particular line from Lewin and nothing else from the article?
Their comments were taken out of context by you.
And as has been explained to you numerous times now, too numerous to count, all fossils are transitional fossils. A lack of transitional fossils as you seem to believe them to be, does not mean that the theory of evolution is wrong. We can track human evolution, for example, fairly clearly. Your continued attempts to misrepresent Gould in this article is noted and it is tantamount to trolling on your behalf.
The same goes with Ayala.
You quote mine.
And the links you gave clearly discount your general position and belief about evolution. In other words, Gould believes in evolution. You do not.
Had you read the authors you were quoting, you would clearly see that you are misrepresenting their words and their works.
Do not lie Leopold.
It is abundantly clear to everyone else here what it is you do not understand.
Who are all firm supporters of evolution and evolutionary theory. You have not only lied about their actual position on the matter, but also quote mined and misrepresented their writing and then discounted their actual works, books and articles.
You mean like Dr Ayala and Gould who presented the correct information and you discounted it because it wasn't in "science" and who are all firm supporters and believers of evolution?
Stop trolling Leopold and stop lying.
something isn't quite right here and it's important to find out what it is.
nothing will ever get solved by pretending or looking the other way.
like goulds spandrels.
a nice, grandiose explanation but he could only come up with one example, and he's a paleontologist.
you say this in jest, but there is such a thing as a duck billed platypuss.
a future transitional fossil?
then there is the monarch butterfly, which seems to suggest changes can happen very fast.
no need to attack me, i'm asking questions and presenting what any layman would.
if what i present makes you, or anyone else, uncomfortable then you really need to ask yourself some questions.
Wrong. It's not a question mark to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology. People like yourself, who know nothing of it, are obviously confused by this prospect, but you do not represent the scientific community.
I'm not the one looking the other way here, you are.
I asked you a question, and you've dodged it.
What precisely is it that you're expecting to see when you talk about transitional fossils? It's an important question to answer.
As has been pointed out to you. Every species is transitional. It's transitional between some past form and some future form.
Again, you're projecting.
I'm fairly sure I can speak for nearly everybody in this thread when I say that the only thing you've said or done in this thread that makes people even remotely uncomfortable is to be dishonest.
i believe i posted 2 or 3 paragraphs from the lewin article.
yes, i've read that article and the issue was freely available on the web.
the link has stopped working for some reason.
i posted the link to the entire article bells, complete with references.
i am not misrepresenting gould or anyone else.
ask hercules rockefeller if i misrepresented, misquoted, or took out of context, ayala.
i posted the links to the articles in question bells.
they clearly discount what i was taught in school.
you have no idea what i believe, or what my conclusions are.
i have read the material i've posted, except the survey presented to "science" from PSU.
ah yes, it finally dawned on me, it's my reply to aqueous id.
not my fault.
this is what happens when you pass crap for facts.
i am not looking for anything except an explanation to the links i presented.
my posts are there for all to see, and i stand by them.
Still not an answer.
I could, for example, post a list of transitional fossils from Wikipedia - they have a page devoted exclusively to it. But whether or not you're willing to accept such as proof depends on what you expect to see from a transitional fossil.
And so I ask for the third time, what do you expect to see in a transitional fossil?
see post 234, don't ask again.
Post #234 does not answer the question, it avoids it.
Here, for example, is a list of transitional fossils that get you from Ammonoidea to Homonidae: List of Transitional Fossils on Wiki
But as I said, whether or not you're willing to accept that depends on what you're expecting from a transitional fossil.
Incidentally, it would be helpful if when you refer back to the articles you've already posted, you could provide links to them, or at least state which post they're in.
I don't care whether you respond to me or not, leopold. In fact, your not responding to me just makes your position look even weaker, and it makes you look more and more dishonest.
The reason you're saying you won't respond to me is that I ask you too many inconvenient questions that you'd rather avoid. Moreover, I have seen through your front of being somebody who is merely interested in finding out the truth, and have correctly deduced that you're a religious fundamentalist who is willing to lie and distort and selective choose evidence in order to pretend that his preferred view has support from real scientists.
And I'm sure it irks you also that I insist on keeping your religious views front and centre when you're talking on this subject. That is necessary, because you have never denied a religious motivation for your disbelief in evolution, and in fact your reliance on standard Creationist literature for everything you know about the subject suggests a high degree of indoctrination, most likely by somebody else in your religious community.
You can rest assured that I will continue to highlight your dishonesty and dissembling so that others are well aware of it. I don't need to interact with you to do that. Besides, interaction with somebody who is not open to education is frustrating and usually not very useful.
There's no fundamental difference between macroevolution and microevolution. The processes are the same for both. And there's no question at all that evolution is a fact, except among the uneducated and the willfully ignorant.
Yes, you have a problem. What your Creationist friends tell you doesn't mesh with modern science. So, there are at least two possibilities:
(a) modern science is wrong and Creationism is right; or
(b) modern science is right and Creationism is wrong.
Since you believe that the bible is the inerrant Word of God, option (b) is impossible from your point of view, so you assume that option (a) must be the case. And nothing will ever change your mind about that as long as you remain as religious as you are.
There's a slim hope that at some point in your life you may be exposed to moderate religion - for example the kind of Christianity that realises that Genesis can be taken as allegory and that the bible is not a science textbook. But I'm not holding my breath.
I see no evidence that you understand what Gould was talking about with his "spandrels".
All platypuses have bills that look a bit like ducks' bills.
Nobody disputes that some evolutionary changes can happen fast. Speciation has even been observed in the lab over relatively short times.
What about your quote-mining effort from Ayala?
Are you going to apologise to us all for that, now?
gee james i can't seem to find ANY "standard creationist literature" in this thread that was posted by me.
what i have posted comes from respected sources AND i linked to the entire article in question.
apparently gould didn't find much evidence for it either, or didn't you read the article?
what about it?
hercules rockefeller can tell you all you need to know.
if anyone owes an apology it's "science" not me.
Another disingenuous response from you. One that ignores most of the substance of my post to concentrate on details that are either not disputed or are not relevant to anything.
I guess you've run out of any substantive arguments on the topic of evolution, and you're too lazy to do any more reading on the subject at CreationismIsUs.com, so you're reduced to continuing to lie about what people like Ayala and Gould actually believe(d).
like i said, i stand by what i've posted and linked to, it's there for all to see.
Separate names with a comma.