Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.and a heap of BS.
Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong. Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
"I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywcand a heap of BS.Little bit of A, little bit of B.
Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
There are none."Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.Ok let's look at your example of evolution.
You believe over time things gradually change. What we see both in the fossil and living fossil record things suddenly appeared.
A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.But what really know about mutations over time they are destructive.
Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
Yes.Can you provide these transitional fossils ?
Yes.Also the transitional fossils that connects the two families,example like the one that connects reptiles and birds and Humans and whatever you claim humans evolved from.
Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?Oh and if something evolved it means it was better adapted but yet they no longer exist why ?
They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?How did they pass their traits on if they went extinct ?
In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.Yes the precambrian was only a few million years so how did they all evolve in such a short time scale ?
It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information.
Yes ... and?Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
and a heap of BS.
Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong. Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong. Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
"I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywcand a heap of BS.
Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory. [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), Paleontology and Uniformitariansim. Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid. [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences. [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesnt even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories. [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the official position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count). [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed. [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequencesmore than enough (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these superb examples were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanationnot unheard of among evolutionistswould be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
maybe, but that's not the point.
all we need to know is 1 fact more than you.
and that would not mean a thing as to being right or wrong.There are none."Suddenly" on a geologic time scale; this "suddenly" is still a time period of millions of years.
A theory which does not contradict or refute gradualism, but rather enhances gradualism--as was demonstrated when your dishonest quote-mining of Gould & Elderidge was exposed.
No. Over the course of millions of year WITH transitions.
What you are describing here is ENTIRELY different than the speciation which HAS BEEN observed, which CONFIRMS macroevolution.
The verifiable evidence strongly suggests this is so; observed speciation VERY STRONGLY supports this suggestion.
This all depends upon your standard of "proof"; The verifiable evidence strongly suggests suggests common descent.
This problem you say evolutionists have is non-existent, as the terminology you use to describe your premise is demonstrably specious.
In the fossil record. There are ABUNDANT examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record.
Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES the parent species to become extinct.
Because in certain cases, daughter species DID out-compete their parent species to the point of extinction.
Because there's nothing about speciation or common descent that REQUIRES a species to become extinct.
The environment is dynamic, and the dynamic of a species' environment includes other species.
We DO see transitional animals--RING SPECIES.
There is NO LACK of transitional organisms, and punctuated equilibrium is compatible with gradualism, and this "suddenly" you keep disingenuously referencing is a period of time that is millions of years in duration.
Even your FULLY ERRONEOUS description of punctuated equilibrium, your denial of the patently obvious existence of transitional fossils, and your refusal to acknowledge the proof of macro-evolution that ring species presents is still NO EVIDENCE WHAT-SO-EVER supporting Creation Theory.
Even if your patent bullshit WAS valid, it would only invalidate specific assertion of evolutionary theory. Even if your patent bullshit fully invalidated evolutionary theory, that refutation in no way what-so-ever is ANY evidence supporting creation theory.
The evidence CLEARLY contradicts this assertion that "Animals and man suddenly appeared ..." and there is no valid verifiable evidence that animal and man were created.
And macro-evolution has been confirmed, and confirmed consistent with the theory of evolution and in direct contradiction to creation theory.
No evolutionist denies that mutations can change genetic information, that such change can lead to the different expression of traits, and that the differences in genetics and expressed traits is what fundamentally determines speciation.
There is nothing about mutation that requires it to express itself magically throughout a population all at once. ONLY harmful mutations can be destructive over time, however there is nothing about mutation that makes them NECESSARILY destructive; and clearly not all of them are destructive. Those that are so destructive that they are lethal have no destructive effects on a population over time at all; those that are not so destructive but impair fitness have little if any destructive effect over time on a population; and those that are not destructive simply have no destructive consequence what-so-ever on the population over time; and those that enhance fitness have a greater probability of being passed, over time, to subsequent generations.
Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
Yes.
Yes.
Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?
They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?
In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.
It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.Oh and when you go through trait changes that is new genetic information.
Yes ... and?Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
Not in any manner what-so-ever.There are none.Nice try but I will let you look back through your post and find your contradictions.
Yes.
Yes.
Why do you say that evolution would assert that every organism whose existence is manifestly evident no longer exists?
They weren't extinct when they passed on their traits. You're a complete idiot, aren't you?
In the precise manner that has been explained to you so very numerous times already.
It seems to be agreeable that changes in inheritable traits are the result of changes in genetic information. It also seems agreeable to assert that "new" genetic information is a change from "old" or "previous" genetic information as well as being "newly introduced" or "additional" genetic information.
Yes ... and?Example your side claims that our ancestors eventually got better at walking upright that would take new genetic information.
According to your theory you contradicted.
They most certainly failed to demonstrate any contradictions in any manner what-so-ever.My questions show the contradictions.
Not at all.Did you forget survival of the fittest ?
Why don't you share your retarded misunderstanding, your disingenuous misapplication, your dishonest misrepresentation of "my side" with all of us?Do you remember how your side explains mendels findings ?
"I am sure you guys know more than these guys."- ywcand a heap of BS.
Quotes from evolutionist concerning transitional fossils. I am sure you guys know more than these guys.
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460
“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
maybe, but that's not the point.
all we need to know is 1 fact more than you.
they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.I'm curious why you would put any credence in the words of people who believe in evolution, whether they disagree with some specifics or not?
You seem to be saying, "Evolution is wrong. Here are some people who believe it to be true saying it is wrong.".
Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
no you show me ...you need to provide the transcripts,articles, videos, peer reviewed papers of the originals not those cherry picked statements ,in their totality to know what context those statements were made.they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale. The only evidence is in ones mind.
Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.The only evidence is in ones mind.
you mst mean PAUL.Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.The only evidence is in ones mind.
they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!since ywc is quoting from a creationist site ,it's meaningless anyway.
Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
no you show me ...you need to provide the transcripts,articles, videos, peer reviewed papers of the originals not those cherry picked statements ,in their totality to know what context those statements were made.they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale. The only evidence is in ones mind.
you seem to forget that you are CON or plaintiff of this tread ,it's up to you to prove their validity,
you've done none of that, scripture and pseudo science don't cut it!
Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!
Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.The only evidence is in ones mind.
they're out of context, that makes them inaccurate!Prove those quotes are not accurate. They give you where the quotes came from.
It wouldn't matter if they were in context. The newest one is 30 years old. I teach immunology every 3rd semester. Just a couple of years ago we knew hardly anything about the innate immune system, now you could spend the entire semester on it. So, the answer is yes, I know a whole lot more than any biologist from the 80s and an incomprehensible amount more than any biologist from the 50s, just because so much more is known in general. Though You (and probably the site the quotes came from) is using them in a disingenuous way, it doesn't even matter. If you look back far enough you can find biologists disagreeing about things that are known for a fact today. How does that have any meaning?
Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.Show me.
Look, macro-evolution is a fairytale.
Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.The only evidence is in ones mind.
B.S.
Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Five Major Misconceptions FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Nope. Your creation story is actually the fairytale ... it central character is a fairy (or empirically indistinguishable from one), which actually makes the assertion all the more accurate.Your creation story is the actual fairytale ... featuring a fairy, just to make the assertion all the more accurate.
Macro-evolution is a phenomenon well established in evidence. It's validity clearly and unambiguously demonstrated.
B.S.
Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions
about Evolution
(a rebuttal of Mark Isaaks Five Major Misconceptions FAQ in the Talk.Origins Archive)
© 2005-2007 T. Wallace. All Rights Reserved.
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
