How To Define "Evolution"?

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'


And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.


Poor form.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course, that explanation is nonsense.

This is your "educated" response? Hmm. Not so educated, from the looks of it.




So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff. I agree.



Erm, I'm not your brother. None of my brothers are creationists.



This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong). Not all DNA is alike. Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA. And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.



Gee, more obfuscation. How typical.

If only I had the unmitigated faith in my religion as you have in this.....

Can I get an 'amen'?

So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll. Nothing better to do?

1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.

Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response. I should have seen. My bad.

2. I hate to embarrass you (just kiddin'...I love it) but why are you running away from the problem of the missing pre-Cambrian fossils?

Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils. You didn't know this? Huh.

3. And, actually, my view is that the theory of evolution is far more politics than science.
That's why you guys get as incensed when your religion...er, theory is disputed as Stalin did when Trotsky didn't agree.

Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it. You creationists folks are doing that. We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system. And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen. Sorry if this upsets you. Tough titties.

So sorry, brother....I'm just not the totalitarian you are.

Gee, more ad hominem. Getting desperate, eh?

And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts….whatever anyone posts, just type “Oh, yeah…That’s what you think!”

Science is not about proof. It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".

4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.

That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining. Congratulations. When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.

 

[orogenicman]

Is this an example of "Enlightened Response" from an “Above Average” person such as yourself?:
In response to PoliticalChic:

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'


And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.


Poor form.

Do you want me to demonstrate that you were plagiarizing (which is easily done), or will you simply admit that you made a mistake in not citing your source, and promise not to do it again? (this should be interesting)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Where is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?

Point them out one at a time. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.

She was quote mining - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades. It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make. It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least. Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything. It only makes the user appear desperate.

Now, now....poor fella....

First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....

...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'




Back on track?

From the OP:

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.

Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!


Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.



The theory was shown to be bogus back in the 1860's....yet ignorant acolytes such as yourself are tricked into accepting it now.

Sad.

Did you ever go to college?

I mean a real one, not one of those pay-to-get-a-sheepskin mills.

(Don't answer if it's really embarrassing.)



If you ask nicely, I'll post an OP about the Cambrian Explosion....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, yes, actually. Or did you think that we should just ignore when someone is plagiarizing the work of others, and using logical fallacies in their arguments?

Try not to use words you don't understand, such as 'plagiarize.'


And, especially, don't use them to try to hide the fact that you were nailed in the argument.


Poor form.

Do you want me to demonstrate that you were plagiarizing (which is easily done), or will you simply admit that you made a mistake in not citing your source, and promise not to do it again? (this should be interesting)

Is each of the quotes cited as to source?


Yes, or no?

 

[rdean]

Evolution: The opposite of what has happened with the Republican Party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is your "educated" response? Hmm. Not so educated, from the looks of it.




So what you are saying is that biochemistry is interesting stuff. I agree.



Erm, I'm not your brother. None of my brothers are creationists.



This is a very simplistic explanation (and wrong). Not all DNA is alike. Not only that, but biologists have already developed synthetic DNA. And successfully manipulated natural DNA in thousands of experiments.



Gee, more obfuscation. How typical.



So what you are saying is that you don't truly believe in your own religion - that you are just here because you like to troll. Nothing better to do?

1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.

Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response. I should have seen. My bad.




Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils. You didn't know this? Huh.



Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it. You creationists folks are doing that. We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system. And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen. Sorry if this upsets you. Tough titties.




Gee, more ad hominem. Getting desperate, eh?

And, as you have no proof of the theory, I can save you a great deal of time in your posts….whatever anyone posts, just type “Oh, yeah…That’s what you think!”

Science is not about proof. It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".

4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.

That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining. Congratulations. When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.

Are you fibbing?

You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.

But, sadly....I won't be waiting.

 

[orogenicman]

Where is the Logical Fallacy of which you speak?

Point them out one at a time. And please don't link to a 22 page lecture on Logical Fallacies.

She was quote mining - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades. It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make. It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least. Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything. It only makes the user appear desperate.

Now, now....poor fella....

First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....

...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'

That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic. Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them). I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today. Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.

And yes, I did go to college. I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology. You?

 

[PoliticalChic]

She was quote mining - it is a classic fallacy that creationists have used and misused for decades. It is a fallacy because these people invariable quote people out of context in order to make it appear that the person being quoted is supporting whatever argument that want to make. It is dishonest, and unprofessional, to say the least. Quote mining doesn't support or refute anything. It only makes the user appear desperate.

Now, now....poor fella....

First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....

...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'

That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic. Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them). I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today. Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.

And yes, I did go to college. I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology. You?

"That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."

Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
That makes you a liar.


"I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."

Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.



So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?

"you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."

So....why haven't you documented same?

 

[orogenicman]

1. I referred to you not as my brother, but as the acolyte of the religion of your choice, the fake science of Darwinian evolution.

Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response. I should have seen. My bad.




Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils. You didn't know this? Huh.



Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it. You creationists folks are doing that. We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system. And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen. Sorry if this upsets you. Tough titties.




Gee, more ad hominem. Getting desperate, eh?



Science is not about proof. It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".

4. But, heck....being a devotee of your theory must be a great time saver: don't have to do a lot of thinking.
Gives you lots of time to watch 'Planet of the Apes' reruns.

That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining. Congratulations. When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.

Are you fibbing?

You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.

But, sadly....I won't be waiting.

So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you? Poor dear.

There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks. PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.

As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable. It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.

 

[Synthaholic]

While I appreciate you replying, I wanted YOU to explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS, in a way that the average person reading this thread can understand, HOW a Human Cell evolves/evolved all by itself.

Providing a link to a "Wall of Text" isn't gonna' work.

Perhaps you should start a new thread in Science (or Conspiracy Theories) about your ideas on "evolution"?

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Please don't apologize for being less than average.

The board accepts all levels of posters.

So far, he's kicking your ass.

 

[orogenicman]

Now, now....poor fella....

First your charge of plagiarizing was proven false....

...now you obfuscate with the bogus 'quote mining.'

That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic. Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them). I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.

3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."

Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today. Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.

And yes, I did go to college. I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology. You?

"That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."

Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
That makes you a liar.


"I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."

Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.



So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?

"you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."

So....why haven't you documented same?

Two points, Miss PC. I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price - ). Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution. Evolution is already a well established science. If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals. Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results? Here is one such resource:

Journal of Paleontology Home

Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers. Alas, there is no free lunch. Welcome to the real world.

Here is one of my papers. Cheers,

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[Stashman]

The definition of evolution in a nutshell is:
Man making a monkey out of himself.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, so you were posting an ad hominem response. I should have seen. My bad.




Erm, there are thousands of pre-Cambrian fossils. You didn't know this? Huh.



Actually, evolutionary scientists aren't the ones making political arguments out of it. You creationists folks are doing that. We've been perfectly content to just work on the science, but that isn't possible (of course, you know this, don't you?) when a very small, vocal minority of radical evangelicals are making irrational and religiously motivated demands on our education system. And so we aren't just going to stand idly by and let that happen. Sorry if this upsets you. Tough titties.




Gee, more ad hominem. Getting desperate, eh?



Science is not about proof. It is about evidence, and there is plenty of that in support of biological evolution, while there is none for "God did it".



That's funny, since I'm the only one apparently doing any thinking in this thread, while all you have is ad hominem, plagiarism, and quote mining. Congratulations. When you decide you actually want to have an intelligent conversation, I'll be here.

Are you fibbing?

You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.

But, sadly....I won't be waiting.

So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you? Poor dear.

There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks. PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.

As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable. It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.

" just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable."

Absolutely true.


My purpose is to point out that much of science is accepted on the same basis as much of religion.

Faith.

"Our atheistic scientist friends, Harris or Hitchens, observe that many do not appear to be true in terms of contemporary science, i.e., Muhammad flying to Jerusalem on a horse named Borak. Hitchens alertly notes that “horses do not and cannot fly.” And many of us in the faith community concur, and, in fact, reserve the right to decide which aspects of tradition are eternal truths and which are assigned to the allegory category. Or…must we be responsible to endorse every line as absolute and literal truth?

a. Should not the same requirement be assigned to the atheist scientists? Especially, as so many aspects of science, like everything else in life, one must accept on faith.

b. By what standard might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? ‘It may well be that "religious faith," as the philosopher Robert Todd Carroll has written, "is contrary to the sum of evidence," but if religious faith is found wanting, it is reasonable to ask for a restatement of the rule by which "the sum of evidence" is computed.’
By what standards might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not? - Yahoo! Answers
It seems that for our atheistic-scientists, there is only one rule: “My way or the highway.” Sure doesn’t sound like science.

See chapter three of Dr. David Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."

 

[Synthaholic]

This is the first thing you've said that is even close to correct: Darwinian evolution should certainly be classified as a religion.

Typical creationist obfuscation. Congratulations.



I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.




When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know. As that WOULD refute evolution. Good luck with that. Darwin lived 150 years ago. We've got more and better fossils today.

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

b. ". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world."
G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.


c. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing."
David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

d. "Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another."
Thomas S. Kemp,Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

Far be it from I to trample on another's religion.

Go in peace, brother.

Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?


Well...OK...

Here is your tutorial:
pla·gia·rize
/ˈplājəˌrīz/
Verb
Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own


So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'


More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.


You're welcome.

Correct. PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster. Not an original thought in her head. Which is why she identifies with Supergirl. When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?


PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.

Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?

 

[orogenicman]

Are you fibbing?

You can get back when you have evidence of trilobites and brachiopods in pre-Cambrian fossils.

But, sadly....I won't be waiting.

So you will be using the god of the gaps argument, will you? Poor dear.

There are a few Precambrian sites that contain primitive arthropods, and even a few that contain what appear to be trilobite tracks. PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist. Trilobites likely came from Precambrian bilaterians, of which there are several fossil examples.

As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable. It certainly doesn't give you an excuse to proclaim (god did it), particularly when you have cited no evidence to support such a claim.

" just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable."

Absolutely true.


My purpose is to point out that much of science is accepted on the same basis as much of religion.

Faith.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right."

-Thomas Paine.

In other words, repeatedly proclaiming claiming science to be akin to a religion is merely willful ignorance, and an admission that you've run out of arguments. Congratulations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work, now that is just pathetic. Do me a favor - be sure and not change any of your posts (or if you want, I can copy and paste them so that you cannot remove them). I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread can see your posts unedited.



Darwin was stymied by the "Cambia explosion" because he lived 150 years ago, and did not have access to our modern database of fossils and mountains of other data that we have today. Pretending that science hasn't made progress in this area in the 150 years since Darwin is not only dishonest, it demonstrates willful ignorance of the science, particularly when considering that unlike Darwin, you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it.

And yes, I did go to college. I am a geologist with a MS degree, am certified in three states, hold a national certification with the AAPG, and am published in the journal of invertebrate paleontology. You?

"That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."

Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
That makes you a liar.


"I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."

Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.



So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?

"you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."

So....why haven't you documented same?

Two points, Miss PC. I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price - ). Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution. Evolution is already a well established science. If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals. Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results? Here is one such resource:

Journal of Paleontology Home

Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers. Alas, there is no free lunch. Welcome to the real world.

Here is one of my papers. Cheers,

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.

I've taught you both vocabulary and logic.

And, although it should embarrass you, honesty.




2. " it is not my place to defend evolution."

You're fibbing....again.

It was your purpose in joining the thread.



3. "If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals."

No there aren't.


And your post is diaphanous.....it is of one beating a hasty retreat, pretending it is not a defeat.




To review.

Darwin's theory required there to be pre-Cambrian fossils of trilobites and brachiopods that would document an assortment of small changes, some of which were adaptive, and passed on to progeny.

They don't exist.
The organisms that populated the Cambrian did so largely spontaneously. That is why it is known as the Cambrian Explosion.

In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'



Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
“…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”



It, and you, are as simple as that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical creationist obfuscation. Congratulations.



I don't take anything on faith. Faith is a belief in something NOT in evidence. As there is a mountain of evidence supporting the biological theory of evolution, and NONE supporting "God did it", I will suggest that it is you who are reciting a religious belief.




When you find a bunny rabbit among all those Cambrian fossils, do let us know. As that WOULD refute evolution. Good luck with that. Darwin lived 150 years ago. We've got more and better fossils today.




Who are you plagiarizing this crap from? You do realize that quote mining (particularly from outdated sources) is not science, right?

There is so very much lacking in your education.....the definition of 'plagerize' as well?


Well...OK...

Here is your tutorial:
pla·gia·rize
/ˈplājəˌrīz/
Verb
Take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own


So....when the source is identified following the quote, it cannot be called 'plagiarized.'


More reading in your formative years would have given you a broader vocabulary, and a better grasp of the language.


You're welcome.

Correct. PoliticalChic is not a plagiarist, she's a cut-n-paster. Not an original thought in her head. Which is why she identifies with Supergirl. When you have all that blunt force, who needs to think?


PoliticalChic, while you are cutting and pasting from extreme Right-Wing sources, devoid of the knowledge in the subject to be able to argue extemporaneously, our friend orogenicman clearly is well-versed in this science. Post #2 was especially informative.

Why don't you take this opportunity to learn a few things instead of arguing out of your league?

I note that you haven't confronted the OP...

No free time from your high stress job at Dairy Queen?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not your average person. And you shouldn't be content to be an "average" person, either. You either learn or you don't. Who do you want to be? A "wall of text" that answers your question wouldn't be merely a wall of text if you had any understanding of biology. I'm not going to apologize for your intellectual failings. If you don't understand the answer (or are too lazy to put in the effort required), perhaps you shouldn't ask the question. Either that or you can make an effort to understand the answer. It's up to you to give an enlightened response. I've given you my answer.

Please don't apologize for being less than average.

The board accepts all levels of posters.

So far, he's kicking your ass.

I must admit, I'd actually consider switching my position if a dope like you said I was winning.

 

[orogenicman]

"That you believe that projection gets you off the hook is just sad. That you refuse to admit that you were quote mining and plagiarizing someone else's work,..."

Any quote that I provided was given attribution.
That makes you a liar.


"I am a geologist with a MS degree,..."

Bet if you write a nice, polite letter, you can get your money back.



So....the pre-Cambian trilobite and brachiopod fossils.....?

"you DO have access to that data but intentionally ignore it."

So....why haven't you documented same?

Two points, Miss PC. I am not your geology instructor (though I can be, for a price - ). Secondly, it is not my place to defend evolution. Evolution is already a well established science. If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals. Instead of searching creationist web sites, where I dare say you won't find anything beyond the nonsense you have already posted, may I suggest you search those resources where the people who have actually conducted the science have deposited their results? Here is one such resource:

Journal of Paleontology Home

Yes, I know, you have to pay for a subscription in order to access their database of papers. Alas, there is no free lunch. Welcome to the real world.

Here is one of my papers. Cheers,

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

1. " I am not your geology instructor...'
But...from the thread, it appears I am yours.

Dear, I doubt that you could pass a "rocks for jocks" class., much less anything at the graduate level.

I've taught you both vocabulary and logic.

And, although it should embarrass you, honesty.

Okay, let's settle this, honestly. I am offering you an honest challenge. You should meet up with me (bring as many of your friends as you like and I will do so as well, for safety's sake). We pick a place that we can agree on. And then we go on a geologic field trip. You can explain your knowledge of geology IN THE FEILD, and I can do the same. Are you game for this?

2. " it is not my place to defend evolution."

You're fibbing....again.

How is what I said in any way a lie?

It was your purpose in joining the thread.

My purpose was to expose your diatribe for the religious nonsense that it is. It was mostly a wasted effort, as you did my job so aptly for me.

3. "If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals."

No there aren't.

Erm, what planet did you say you are from?

And your post is diaphanous.....it is of one beating a hasty retreat, pretending it is not a defeat.

I'm still here. Where are you?

To review.

Darwin's theory required there to be pre-Cambrian fossils of trilobites and brachiopods that would document an assortment of small changes, some of which were adaptive, and passed on to progeny.

They don't exist.

Now you are making shit up. We don't need pre-Cambrian fossils to demonstrate the evolution of trilobites. And while it is true that we likely have not found the species from which trilobites originated, trilobite evolution extends from at least the Cambrian to the Permian. In that time interval, there arose and fell many species of trilobites, all indicating the transitions you seek. But if you want to discuss transitional species, you do realize, of course, that the notion of transitional species is a misnomer, right? ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL.

The organisms that populated the Cambrian did so largely spontaneously. That is why it is known as the Cambrian Explosion.

Again, you willfully ignore that science advances as knowledge is attained. There was no Cambrian explosion, as the paper I posted previously pointed out.

In claiming that said documentation do exist, you are either lying or accepting pretend examples that others claim are 'almost' or 'close to' or 'could be.'

In denying the mountains of data on these issues, you are telling the world that you've apparently "fallen and can't get up", that you've been stuck in your house all your life and have never seen the inside of a public library, much less picked up a science journal. Truly, you have my deepest sympathy.

Your need to support what is clearly unproven is based on the following:

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment:
“‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.”
Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities:
“…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

It, and you, are as simple as that.

So what you are telling me is that your opposition to the theory of evolution is because you perceive this one geneticist to be a Marxist (and of course, you hate all Marxists, right)? Yeah, there's no political agenda going on there, is there? And no quote mining, either. Oh wait...