tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post588958579572696335..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: An Evolutionist Just Made An Incredible Blunder In a Sodium Channel Evolution Paper As Evolutionists Continue To Drink Their Own BathwaterUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42605165789922802772012-06-30T22:10:06.178-07:002012-06-30T22:10:06.178-07:00bpragmatic
Thornton: "and why do the scienti...<i>bpragmatic<br /><br />Thornton: "and why do the scientific fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. that support ToE not qualify?"<br /><br />Scientific fields support ID.</i><br /><br />Ignoring the fact that you failed to define "real science":<br /><br />Please feel free to present your positive evidence for ID from any and all scientific fields.<br /><br />Note that "ToE can't explain this to my satisfaction!" <b>*isn't*</b> positive evidence for ID.<br /><br />Ball's in your court.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48190135105740919052012-06-29T20:06:22.648-07:002012-06-29T20:06:22.648-07:00Thornton,
"and why do the scientific fields ...Thornton,<br /><br />"and why do the scientific fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. that support ToE not qualify?"<br /><br />Scientific fields support ID.<br /><br /><br />"Another wonderful example of what passes for "logic" with IDCers: "Science experiments are intelligently designed, so that means whatever phenomenon they're investigating must be intelligently designed too!""<br /><br />What I had in mind behind the comment was OOL research.<br />Often times many intelligent, very well educated and heavily funded individuals using state of the art facilites and equipment to strategically manipulate and guide reactions to attempt to reach known outcomes. Huge degree of illegitimate investigator intereference, yet trivial results.<br /><br /><br />"Alternately, the woefully scientifically illiterate IDCers could get a science education before embarrassing themselves by spouting off on topics they don't understand. But they won't. It's way easier to stay ignorant and remain a Creationist."<br /><br />Many ID advocates are highly educated in science and have an excellent grasp on the relevant topics. And many times they embarrass evolutionists when debating or dialoguing over the issues with them.<br /><br />Also, my impression of your participation, Thornton, is that you rely heavily on riducule, appeals to authority, strawman arguments etc etc etc to try and get the "upper hand" instead of addressing the issues as they are discussed.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12600587339619514932012-06-29T10:11:29.448-07:002012-06-29T10:11:29.448-07:00bpragmatic
Give real science the funding and time...<i>bpragmatic<br /><br />Give real science the funding and time the false science of darwinian evolution has had over the decades, and I am pretty confident real science would be able to develop convincing and demonstrable hypothesis as to how intelligent capabilities could develop the requirements necessary for the "living" organisms and ecosystems that are empirically observable to intelligent agents in this day.</i><br /><br />What is your definition of "real science", and why do the scientific fields of biology, paleontology, genetics, geology, etc. that support ToE not qualify?<br /><br /><i>In fact, the evolutionary "scientists" who are so arduously attempting to demonstrate that naturalistic "evolutionary" processes are capable of achieving such results are unwittingly demostrating the level of intelligent interference necessary to achieve even menial results towards what mere figments of the the requirements are comprised of.</i><br /><br />Another wonderful example of what passes for "logic" with IDCers: "Science experiments are intelligently designed, so that means whatever phenomenon they're investigating must be intelligently designed too!"<br /><br />And IDCers still wonder why they get laughed at.<br /><br /><i>Expert rhetorical perveyors of triviality, such as LIddle, should resign themselves to switching careers to fiction novel writing and spare the individuals who are seriously interested in this topic the diversionary tactics that unbridled and undisciplined imagination and irrelevant arguments will take them</i><br /><br />Alternately, the woefully scientifically illiterate IDCers could get a science education before embarrassing themselves by spouting off on topics they don't understand. But they won't. It's way easier to stay ignorant and remain a Creationist.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4763899076567804432012-06-29T09:53:04.990-07:002012-06-29T09:53:04.990-07:00Stupid evolutionist:
Oh please, spare us the stan...Stupid evolutionist:<br /><br /><i>Oh please, spare us the standard Creationist denials. NS is incredibly well documented and demonstrated.</i><br /><br />Where did you demonstrate that natural selection gave rise to the species? In your asteroid orifice?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23634664308823798622012-06-29T09:50:21.092-07:002012-06-29T09:50:21.092-07:00Stupid evolutionist:
Sad fact is, ID is all hype ...Stupid evolutionist:<br /><br /><i>Sad fact is, ID is all hype and bluster to support a religious driven political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with science.</i><br /><br />Sad fact is that Darwinian evolution is all hype and bluster to support a religious driven political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with science.<br /><br />There. I fixed that for you. You are scared to death of ID, even though you claim it has nothing to do with science. IOW, you're a stupid evolutionist and you prove it on this forum every day.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41378096908422556742012-06-29T08:09:29.760-07:002012-06-29T08:09:29.760-07:00Crevo
As to citing, first of all, the original &q...<i>Crevo<br /><br />As to citing, first of all, the original "evidence" for evolution was that there were different fossils in older rocks than there are in the present. The problem is that difference does not imply evolution.</i><br /><br />You are blatantly misrepresenting the issue. It wasn't just "different fossils in older rocks". It was the distinct patterns of morphological change that could be tracked over time. A very distinct, branching over deep time phylogenetic tree is present in the fossils. THAT is what needs explaining.<br />Then, when the science of genetics developed, it turned out that a very distinct branching over deep time phylogenetic tree is present in DNA <b>that matches exactly the one found in the fossils.</b> THAT is what needs explaining too.<br /><br /><i>So the mechanism of natural selection was proposed, and was widely accepted even though it was never demonstrated.</i><br /><br />Oh please, spare us the standard Creationist denials. NS is incredibly well documented and demonstrated. <br /><br /><i>Now that has been falling apart (it actually *never* did the explaining it said, it's just that now the rest of the biological community is starting to realize that, too). So, again, we just have different fossils, but no way of linking them with evolutionary change except metaphysical assumptions (which is, and has always been, Cornelius' point). It may be true. It may not be true. The fact is convincing evidence of this has never been provided.</i><br /><br />More Creationist wishful thinking. Sorry Crevo, plentiful evidence for evolution is still here and the ToE is not falling apart. You'll have to pick another fantasy.<br /><br /><i>Thornton says that the word "evolved" actually *does* do scientific work. In this case, what work does it do? </i><br /><br />Once again, evolution provides the extremely well supported explanatory framework for the new concepts being presented.<br /><br /><i>Does it imply a mechanism by which it became what it is?</i><br /><br />Yes it does. The mechanisms of evolution are well know and well documented.<br /><br /><i>In other words, doing things like determining how much information it takes to evolve X feature of the organism.</i><br /><br />ID has never determined how much "information" it takes to evolve any feature, or shown why it's a problem for evolution.<br /><br /><i>In the case of ID, the measurements are mathematical and informational. </i><br /><br />ID has never made measurements of any kind, either mathematical and informational. They can't even <b>define</b> "information" as it applies to biological entities, or give an objective way to measure it.<br /><br />Sad fact is, ID is all hype and bluster to support a religious driven political agenda. It has nothing at all to do with science.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81935589060997463442012-06-29T07:43:22.454-07:002012-06-29T07:43:22.454-07:00Elizabeth and Thornton -
First of all, evolutiona...Elizabeth and Thornton -<br /><br />First of all, evolutionary change over time is granted by all parties I'm aware of. Some of them don't call it evolution since that term is often confused for Darwinism and prefer more metaphysically neutral terms such as adaptation. <br /><br />As to citing, first of all, the original "evidence" for evolution was that there were different fossils in older rocks than there are in the present. The problem is that difference does not imply evolution. So the mechanism of natural selection was proposed, and was widely accepted even though it was never demonstrated. Now that has been falling apart (it actually *never* did the explaining it said, it's just that now the rest of the biological community is starting to realize that, too). So, again, we just have different fossils, but no way of linking them with evolutionary change except metaphysical assumptions (which is, and has always been, Cornelius' point). It may be true. It may not be true. The fact is convincing evidence of this has never been provided.<br /><br />Thornton says that the word "evolved" actually *does* do scientific work. In this case, what work does it do? Does it imply a mechanism by which it became what it is? If it doesn't imply a mechanism, what, exactly, does it imply, that wouldn't also be implied if someone had said "Vishnu created" or "X spontaneously generated"? Since none of these imply a specific mechanism, all of them do the same amount of scientific work. <br /><br />Louis -<br /><br />Actually, the creationists do hash out the mechanisms by which things change, and how we can detect such things. One good read on the subject is Wood's "Understanding the Pattern of Life".<br /><br />The reason the ID'ers don't usually hash out the specifics is because the ID theory is about prerequisites, not natural history. In other words, doing things like determining how much information it takes to evolve X feature of the organism. That doesn't imply a specific natural history, it simply gives the requirements that any proposed natural history must account for. Let's say, for example, you have a theory of star formation. Great! Then, let's say someone else goes and measures the temperature of the star. Also great! However, once the temperature of the star is measured, your theory of star formation needs to be tested against the actual temperature, to make sure that your theory can account for the given temperature. If it can't, you shouldn't complain about the person doing the temperature reading just because they don't have an alternate theory. They are simply pointing out the facts to which *any* theory of star formation must account.<br /><br />In the case of ID, the measurements are mathematical and informational. The fact that ID doesn't propose a specific theory of origins is as irrelevant as whether the person measuring the temperature of the star has a specific theory of star formation. What they can tell is simply that theory X doesn't match feature-of-the-world Y.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54316986141382602572012-06-28T22:59:32.412-07:002012-06-28T22:59:32.412-07:00Liddle:
But they very very rarely thrash these th...Liddle:<br /><br /><i>But they very very rarely thrash these things out among themselves, in my experience.</i><br /><br />Actually you quoted crevo in your post, not me. But that's OK because I agree with crevo. You're right that IDists and creationists rarely thrash these things out among themselves. You want to know why? It's because most of them are cowards, not unlike the Darwinists. They are afraid of being wrong and having to change their minds about their cherished assumptions. Or they are afraid of their peers, afraid of not belonging. It's the old tribal instinct. You can call it political correctness, if you wish. It's been around since the dawn of civilization.<br /><br />Personally, I have no such fear. I am not a groupie in this regard. I can be just as hard on a creationist as on a Darwinist.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88737141227648074262012-06-28T22:42:53.903-07:002012-06-28T22:42:53.903-07:00To all who have responded to a post made by bpragm...To all who have responded to a post made by bpragmatic somewhere above:<br /><br />Give real science the funding and time the false science of darwinian evolution has had over the decades, and I am pretty confident real science would be able to develop convincing and demonstrable hypothesis as to how intelligent capabilities could develop the requirements necessary for the "living" organisms and ecosystems that are empirically observable to intelligent agents in this day.<br /><br />In fact, the evolutionary "scientists" who are so arduously attempting to demonstrate that naturalistic "evolutionary" processes are capable of achieving such results are unwittingly demostrating the level of intelligent interference necessary to achieve even menial results towards what mere figments of the the requirements are comprised of. <br /><br />Expert rhetorical perveyors of triviality, such as LIddle, should resign themselves to switching careers to fiction novel writing and spare the individuals who are seriously interested in this topic the diversionary tactics that unbridled and undisciplined imagination and irrelevant arguments will take them.bpragmatichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13462678825475085862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1393330366401450882012-06-28T16:55:22.235-07:002012-06-28T16:55:22.235-07:00Louis No one disputes that life forms evolve over...Louis <i> No one disputes that life forms evolve over time. The question is, is the form in the fossil record the beginning of that evolution or the product of it?</i><br /><br />Yes, that is the (or a) question. But you are wrong that "no-one disputes that life forms evolve over time". The fascinating thing is that IDists and creationists have wildly different views on this, but rarely argue about it with each other! So in one thread, on an ID site, you will get various IDists scoffing at the daft things "evolutionists" say, even though some of them actually agree with the evolutionists on the point at issue. But they very very rarely thrash these things out among themselves, in my experience.<br /><br />So that's interesting, Louis. Cornelius, do you agree with Louis? And, if so, how are you defining "evolution"?Elizabeth Liddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02465414316063910821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-717319941116005432012-06-28T15:33:27.058-07:002012-06-28T15:33:27.058-07:00And abrupt appearance of novel form in the fossil ...And abrupt appearance of novel form in the fossil record is non-conducive to ID how? Or is that just something you are not even allowed to consider?bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47719100750085260332012-06-28T15:30:11.522-07:002012-06-28T15:30:11.522-07:00The words in the top paragraph are 'my own wor...The words in the top paragraph are 'my own words', while the notes I provided you are why I think Lakatos would view geocentrism as a crystal clear example for what he considered the best demarcation criteria for separating science from pseudo-science. To see the process in action for Darwinism check out Dr. Hunter's new post on RNA's.bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44908369924136986792012-06-28T14:31:02.818-07:002012-06-28T14:31:02.818-07:00crevo
"That life forms evolve over time is s...<i>crevo<br /><br />"That life forms evolve over time is supported"<br /><br />No one disputes that life forms evolve over time.</i><br /><br />Cornelius does. Tedford does. Batspit77 does. Every Creationist who posts here does. It's the main theme of this blog.<br /><br /><i>In other words, "X evolved" is doing no scientific work, and is only there in support of a metaphysical view of its origin.</i><br /><br />No, "X evolved" is providing the extremely well supported explanatory framework for the new concepts being presented.<br /><br /><i>It may have evolved from something else, but there is rarely any evidence for it, and nearly never any evidence cited.</i><br /><br />There are over a hundred years and millions of articles worth of evidence for evolution. Most are no longer cited because citing known facts is superfluous. No papers on new aircraft design ever cite works proving gravity exists either. <br /><br />Science builds on previous knowledge. There is no need to "reinvent the wheel" with every paper.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89024747015204897292012-06-28T14:18:22.218-07:002012-06-28T14:18:22.218-07:00"That life forms evolve over time is supporte..."That life forms evolve over time is supported"<br /><br />No one disputes that life forms evolve over time. The question is, is the form in the fossil record the beginning of that evolution or the product of it?<br /><br />I have read many biochem books which continually state "X evolved" (referring to a system under study) without any supporting statements whatsoever. The content of the textbooks would not have been altered even a small amount if nearly every occurrence of "X evolved" was replaced with "X was created". In other words, "X evolved" is doing no scientific work, and is only there in support of a metaphysical view of its origin.<br /><br />It may have evolved from something else, but there is rarely any evidence for it, and nearly never any evidence cited.crevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454165271895308641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51114269822334505532012-06-28T14:06:25.225-07:002012-06-28T14:06:25.225-07:00I said your own words... :(I said your own words... :(Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36234372449657283462012-06-28T13:42:32.113-07:002012-06-28T13:42:32.113-07:00The history and overturning of geocentrism probabl...The history and overturning of geocentrism probably best reflects what Lakatos thought was the most effeective demarcation criteria in science. i.e. Lakatos thought the most sure mark of a degenerating science program, i.e. a pseudo-science, was that a pseudoscience in a state of degeneration will start to add additional theories, on top of the original theory, solely in order to accommodate facts that are discordant with what the original theory proposed:<br /><br />Notes: <br /><br />Science and Pseudoscience (transcript) - <br /><b>"In degenerating programmes, however, theories are fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts"</b> - Lakatos<br />http://www2.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/about/lakatos/scienceandpseudosciencetranscript.aspx<br /><br />Science and Pseudoscience – Lakatos – audio of lecture<br />http://richmedia.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/2002_LakatosScienceAndPseudoscience128.mp3<br /><br />For examples of additional theories that have been added to neo-Darwinism to 'explain away' discordant facts please see:<br /><br />Darwin’s Predictions<br />http://www.darwinspredictions.com/<br /><br />A few example are here as well:<br /><br />Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria for falsification<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit<br /><br />and let's not forget,<br /><br />The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012<br />Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.<br />http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64344705124637161552012-06-28T12:29:34.709-07:002012-06-28T12:29:34.709-07:00Hey BA^77, can you say in your own words what Laka...Hey BA^77, can you say in your own words what Lakatos thought was a demarcation criteria?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09698934106397111684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23601406426120692412012-06-28T11:33:52.032-07:002012-06-28T11:33:52.032-07:00I agree with Thorton (surprise) that lifeforms evo...I agree with Thorton (surprise) that lifeforms evolved. The evidence for this is as solid as it can be. IDers do not and should not dispute this.<br /><br />What is in question is the manner of the evolution, i.e., how did it happen? Did it happen by itself in minute Darwinian steps that eventually produced all the known species? Or did it happen via design intervention over millions of years?<br /><br />Evolutionists love to point to evidence for evolution (and adaptation) for the correctness of their position that living organisms evolved all by themselves but this is dishonest. Modern vehicles evolve too but the evolutionary process is obviously not Darwinian.<br /><br />Evolutionists have not provided evidence for Darwinian evolution. In fact, the evidence squarely contradicts it. The fossil record does not show a smooth gradation over time but leaps.<br /><br />In conclusion, let me reiterate that there are two main types of evolution: Darwinian evolution and design evolution. I think Hunter would do well to specify which one he refers to in his articles. This would prevent many misconceptions and useless argumentation.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86035389249954883082012-06-28T11:09:58.917-07:002012-06-28T11:09:58.917-07:00batspit77
Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern...<i>batspit77<br /><br />Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern of the fossil record for the last 650 my, and as is well known</i><br /><br />No I didn't batspit77. I asked for the <b>Intelligent Design Creation explanation</b> for the observed patterns.<br /><br /><i>,,, Thus why do you get angry at others and issue ad hominems when the evidence you asked for is presented to you? </i><br /><br />You never present any evidence or discussion. You blindly respond to key words by C&Ping tons of OT information or worthless Creationist drivel. It's both rude and disruptive, but you don't care. You're like an <i>idiot savant</i>, but without the <i>savant</i> part.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41173926583153182642012-06-28T10:12:59.829-07:002012-06-28T10:12:59.829-07:00oleg said
"Scientific theories have always b...oleg said<br /><br />"Scientific theories have always been of limited scope. Newton's theory of gravity explains how gravity works: it's a force between two point objects proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It does not explain the origin of gravity. That does not make Newton's theory deficient. In fact, it's an excellent theory."<br /><br />But ToE do not have a limited scope. It demand I have to believe that all life come from a bacterial like UCLA by RM+NS. <br />And if I withold temporary assent I would be perverse as I withold temporary assent to Newton´s gravity theory.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35725641943443347822012-06-28T09:15:38.038-07:002012-06-28T09:15:38.038-07:00Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern of the fos...Well Thorton, you asked for the pattern of the fossil record for the last 650 my, and as is well known,,,<br /><br />"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."<br />David Kitts - Paleontologist<br /><br />"The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" –<br />Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard<br /><br />,,, Thus why do you get angry at others and issue ad hominems when the evidence you asked for is presented to you? It's not my fault that the fossil evidence for the past 650 my doesn't conform to your 'desired' atheistic/materialistic conclusion! Get mad at the evidence not at us!bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90775855801952843882012-06-28T09:00:24.354-07:002012-06-28T09:00:24.354-07:00Batspit77, what part of
"P.S. No batspit77, ...Batspit77, what part of<br /><br />"P.S. No batspit77, that doesn't mean another 20,000 words of your C&Ped verbal diarrhea."<br /><br />didn't you understand?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18315827266983899002012-06-28T08:55:08.057-07:002012-06-28T08:55:08.057-07:00Thorton asks:
Now, do you have your explanation f...Thorton asks:<br /><br />Now, do you have your explanation for the last 650 MY of the fossil record yet?<br /><br />Well Thorton since this is supposedly about the scientific evidence let's let the evidence speak for itself instead of us imposing any apriori answers onto the evidence, shall we?<br /><br />The abrupt appearance of biological forms.<br />Excerpt: "Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, 'fully formed,' in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."2<br />R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pages 9-10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).<br /><br />But this is not the only such "explosion" in the fossil record. Paleontologists have observed a fish explosion, a plant explosion, a bird explosion, and even a mammal explosion. Abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity seem to be the rule, not the exception, for the fossil record. Transitions plausibly documented by fossils seem to be the rare exception. <br /><br />As leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, "When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."3<br />Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 189 (Basic Books, 2001).<br /><br />This phenomenon exists not only at the species level but also at the level of higher taxa, as one zoology textbook discusses:<br /><br />"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group."4<br />C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, page 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).<br /><br />Rather than acknowledging the general pattern of explosions in the fossil record, PBS focuses on the few occasions where there are possible transitional forms.<br />http://www.judgingpbs.com/dfp-slide13.html<br /><br />Now Thorton what explanation best fits the evidence?bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52389170629218498402012-06-28T07:53:52.110-07:002012-06-28T07:53:52.110-07:00crevo
It's not that we need a citation for &q...<i>crevo<br /><br />It's not that we need a citation for "evolution", but that none was provided for the statement! The paper states, quite simply, "Multicellular animals evolved >650 million years ago". How does the author know that they evolved from anything?<br /><br />Let's put it another way. Let's pretend that the author had instead said, "Multicellular animals were directly created by God ex nihilo >650 million years ago" and had cited the same paper for the fact. Would that had been appropriate? Of course not! The paper provided evidence simply of existence, not of mode of origin. Both statements are equally supported by said paper, which is another way of saying that neither statement finds direct support in the cited paper.</i><br /><br />Crevo, you are completely misunderstanding the situation. The paper is cited to support the <b>date</b> (650 MYA) for the earliest known multi-cellular organisms, not that the organisms evolved. That life forms evolve over time is supported by literally millions of other studies over the last 100+ years. Facts that are that well established are not cited in each new paper, otherwise every new article would be 10,000 pages long.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90386171280166445462012-06-28T07:25:30.247-07:002012-06-28T07:25:30.247-07:00Elizabeth Liddle
heh.
Yeah, this blog would make...<i>Elizabeth Liddle<br /><br />heh.<br /><br />Yeah, this blog would make a good MP script.<br /><br />John Cleese as Cornelius. Works for me :)</i><br /><br />Nah. You need Eric Idle as Cornelius for a proper "Brave Sir Robin". :DGhostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.com