Synaesthesia

It is central to evolution that it does not have a point. That's the whole idea, an itterative process can produce organized, functional complexity.

KC

Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are especially difficult to explain.

KC

KC

I think you'll find we are both in exquisite agreement

Cheers,

KC

Badfish

1. We evolved from one celled organisms.

2. Unexplained missing transitional fossils.

3. An Alligator will evolve to human?

4. Too many variations on the subject.

I can buy evolution within a species possibly, but not total evolution where we were all once the same one celled organism.

Mageth

You're right, GTX. Your four points are bunk.

pz

No, that doesn't sound like bunk at all, and is quite well supported by the molecular evidence.
We expect individuals to be fossilized only rarely, so the "missing" part isn't bunk. There will always be huge gaps in the record. So?

Personally, what I think is bunk is the way creationists ignore all the lovely transitionals that are known to claim that they don't exist.
That is most definitely bunk. Garbage par excellence.

Of course, evolutionary biology does not argue that alligators will evolve to humans, so they aren't the perpetrators of bunk.
This doesn't make sense. Evolution is a complex subject, so what would be bunk is any attempt to reduce it to the kind of glib simplicity that a creationist might be able to understand.
Ho hum. Argument from personal incredulity, given by someone who has little knowledge of the subject. Who cares if you don't know enough to understand?

pz

What do you mean by "officially educated on evolution"? I think anyone who mentions "progress" in any less than a negative sense can only have been miseducated in the subject.

I can think of lots of examples of bad evolutionary science. Darwin's rather bizarre notion that whales evolved from bears that ate insects as they swam across rivers, for instance. Haeckel's whole foundationless edifice of ontogenetic recapitulation. Old anthropological ideas that tried to place modern human races on a scala naturae. Vast swathes of what is now called "evolutionary psychology". It isn't hard to find erroneous debris in the history of any science, and in a rapidly evolving science like biology it's not even hard to find garbage in the current literature.

Badfish

Ho Hum, Who cares what you think about what you think I know. It's people like you that make a bad case for anything, your comments mean squat to me. And your answers are very empty and meaningless, instead of taking offense, present some facts.

The question was "Has there been anything about evolution that sounded like bunk", and I gave my opinion on what sounds like total bunk.

People like you piss me off.

Badfish

Ha ha, very smart of you! I can see you are a person of great knowledge and composure.

Thanks for the very informative answers. LOL!

Badfish

To those who contributed their smart ass answers, thanks, but please don't assume I don't know anything, you have no idea what my thoughts are and you don't know what I can contribute, stooping to trolling and belittlement is childish and does nothing to make your case to creationists.

I mean thats the point right?, you want your case to be considered by creationists, well do your evolutionary brothers and sisters justice by answering appropriately, show some of your evolutionary knowledge.