Kevin Dorner

Ah, so nice to see you back, randman. Yes, we won't be able to show dead fossils evolving before your eyes, so you'll be able to use that line over and over. No "propoganda" like the old propaganda, eh?

BTW, you aren't supposed to be posting until you've addressed all the other open post-and-runs that you made that you didn't provide a proper response to. I suppose when the moderators have to start moving your threads to RR&P because you can't listen to this simple requirement you'll say that you're being oppressed again.

Quetzal

Hi Randman. I answered this already in the "old" thread we were talking on. Take a gander.

randman

Well, Morhpo, as I remember, you gave reasons why the fossil record was incomplete, namely that not many fossils are actually made so one wouldn't expect to find such fossils.
It is a valid response, and not propoganda.
I do not beleive it though for a couple of reasons though I readily admit this might take a level of statistical analysis and such that is beyond my capablity today.
1. There have been millions and millions of years. I find it hard to beleive that all of these transitions would not be shown. It would help to have a decent estimate of the length of time it takes for a major macro-evolution to take place. That could be done by simply linking 2 so-called transitional fossils and dating them and considerig the number of mutations that are needed to take place. Then, let's say it is 2 million years. Then, examine the fossil record over a 2 million period to see how many are usuallu left. Of course, this would still be highly specualtive in nature, and perhaps it has been done. Noone responded to my "fill-in-the-blanks" post with this type of information though.
2. Another reason involves the fact that "stasis" is such an observable fact in the fossil record. I realize PE tries to resolve this dilemna, but at the same time, PE has little actual evidence to support it. It is mostly conjecture.
3. A third reason, in my mind, is that genetic mutations hasn't shown information to be added to the potential of species. In other words, mutations may add information such as when they bring back information that has been lost, but we don't see new genes added. I am a layman as far as genetics so anyone posting gene sequences is wasting their time. If you can't explain it in simple terms, then let's just stick to the fossil stuff which is less technical.

Synaesthesia

You are mistaking your own failure of imagination for an insight into necessity. Alas for us, nature does not operate with regard for the convenience of scientists. It makes us require research to piece together evidence, research which evidently you are too lazy or uninterested to perform.

Incorrect, there is systematic evidence that morphological gradients do not progress at a constant rate through time. PE is not based upon lack of fossil evidence but systematic variations in the morphological varieties of intermediate fossils found over the temporal sequence of the fossil record.

Many genes have been observed to add functionality to biological organisms. Bacterial immunity, for example. Mutations are also observed in plants which improve durability in harsh weather. Of course, “information adding” genes are not always beneficial, more commonly have little effect. Nevertheless, the point remains the same: the addition of genes is not only a common but ubiquitous occurrence in nature.

If you want to be taken seriously randman, I suggest you 1. Base your claim upon more than the limitations of your imagination, 2. Understand the theories (and the basis for them) that you are attacking and 3. Avoid denying the existence of commonly observed phenomenon- it tends to make you look silly.

Daggah

ROFLMAO.

So why don't you define kind, once and for all, so that it may actually be a useful term and not a creationist ploy to make backing out easier? Almost every time I've seen the word "kind" used it's been by the creationist, and it's never defined, so it's a good fall-back word because it doesn't have a meaning - sort of like a lot of other words in Christianity.

You're so full of it, Randman. Most humans are mostly water. You're mostly shit.

Daggah

(still yet again avoiding non-fossil record evidence for evolution again, I see...)

Dr Rick

You have demostrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest and a liar.

This non sequitor is typical of your dishonesty; you have taken several factual statements out of context and that they are "factual" does not mitigate you dishonesty in misrepresenting their meaning.

<strong> Your ignorance of palentology is no less profound than your ignorance of biology. This forum is not just for you, and so we are free to post scientific evidence derived from the multitude of fields that lend support to evolution and expose your lies. If you are too stupid to understand what is being said, consider educating yourself with the excellent posts and references that have been provided in these forums rather than repeating the same gibberish and lies over and over.

randman

"You're so full of it, Randman. Most humans are mostly water. You're mostly shit."

Now, we get to persuasive, objective arguments.
LOL

You guys are a joke. But if you can't answer in plain English, I guess denigration will have to do.
By the way, informationally adding mutations is not the same as adding to the potential that already exists. It seems one of you basically doesn't understand the point here. Maybe I can out it another way. Of course, information can be added, but is it the type of information that is already potentially possible within a limited range, or can the type of information be added to create macro-evolution. I have never seen where mutations have been demonstrated to create macro-evolution, to add the genese necessary to create the chain of common descent theorized by evolutionists.
On "kinds", I gave a quite clear definition.
Too bad, you have to denigrate the idea itself rather than discuss it's merits.
But then again, you could just go back to baseless name-calling. It's much easier, isn't it?

Daggah

I smell hypocrisy...

Eww, I smell an evasion too. Those two smells don't go well together!

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Daggah ]</p>

randman

ROTFLOL
Guess being stupid is how you get to be Mod here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by randman:
I am accussed of demanding an impossibly high standard of transitional, and yet at the same time, I am then accussed of ignoring examples of where that standard is met. Both charges cannot be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You have demostrated yourself to be intellectually dishonest and a liar."

So calling someone a liar suffices for an argument, eh? What typical BS! Both charges cannot be true. That is a fact, but why am I not surprised an evolutionist would claim 2 contradictatory ideas at the same time, and rather than answer, call anyone daring to question them a liar.
What a joke!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, I quoted several men, not Gould, and the quotes are not taken out of context since they are factual quotes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This non sequitor is typical of your dishonesty; you have taken several factual statements out of context and that they are "factual" does not mitigate you dishonesty in misrepresenting their meaning."

This is a good one. Facts are ideas that can only be used by evolutionists. If someone else uses the same facts to counter the speaker's arguments, then somehow that is not genuine.
Your hypocrisy is staggering.