randman

Rufos, if you want to debate about "kinds", I suggest you go over to a creationist board and ask them to tell you.
I was taught evolution. The "evidence" I was taught was mostly a lie so I tend to sticking to what I know, which is:
1. Fossil record exhibits stasis not gradualism.
2. Neanderthals are not the humpback ape-men we were taught they were.
3. Recapitulation is a lie. Babies don't develop "regressive traits" in the womb. They develop only humanity and nothing else. The so-called "tail" is nothing but the backbone forming, etc,..Moreover, the drawings used to convince us of these things were a hoax.
4. Many of the so-called prehumans such as Piltdown man, and Nebraska man were a hoax.
5. Micro-evolution is not documented to lead to macro-evolution. Even the Creationists use Darwin's finches in their models. In no way are they proof of evolution, and in fact, the fossil record seems to suggest mirco-evolution does not cause macro-evolution.

About the only thing evolutionists have going for their theory is the geologic record, and I would not be surprised to see their view of it shot-down as well.

RufusAtticus

Well then, come over to the "Challenge to those who beleive in Kinds" thread, answer my questions, and present your case. If you cannot, then admit it and drop your assertions.

-RvFvS

MrDarwin

Ironically, Paul Chien is an old-earth creationist who believes that the earth is billions of years old, believes that the "Cambrian Explosion" marks God's creation of the phyla approximately 550 million years ago, and apparently believes that the geological and fossil records show--as all evolutionary biologists believe--that all living organisms have evolved since then. Since randman cites Chien, does that mean randman agrees with Chien on the details of creation? I wonder.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Daggah

What about genetic and microbiotic evidence, troll? What about the cytochrome C sequences you've been ignoring all this time?

Troll Hunter

Crikey! I go off for a few days of off-board safari, and randman's threads EXPLODE!!!!! Bugger me, but I'll try to catch up ...

HRG

The fossil record exhibits examples of stasis and of gradualism - as your star witness Gould himself states.
So what ? Their DNA lies outside the range of current humanity.
They develop pharyngeal pouches, which correspond exactly to the gill slits of fish.
I hear the sound of moving goalposts. Where does micro end and macro begin ?

Any use of the undefined term "kind" will be summarily disregarded and regarded as a concession that you cannot support your point.

HRG.

randman

McDarwin, uh, try reading, it helps one to understand.

Daggah

Ironic, just completely freaking ironic.

randman, how about YOU try reading, as well? Why don't you try reading MY posts? Why don't you try reading some actual evolutionary textbooks by the evolutionists you've been quoting out of context all this time?

MrDarwin

Addressing just a few of randman's more egregious claims:

The fossil record exhibits both, as has been demonstrated several times. Not that it's really relevant, because randman has not yet demonstrated why stasis and evolution should be mutually exclusive.

I'm willing to bet randman can't give a single example of a textbook that's less than 50 years old that teaches this.

4. Many of the so-called prehumans such as Piltdown man, and Nebraska man were a hoax.

"Many"? I wonder if randman can come up with even one "so-called prehuman" hoax besides Piltdown or Nebraska man? (And in calling Nebraska Man a "hoax", randman is simply demonstrating how little he knows about the subject.)

I'm still waiting for randman to elaborate on this, but I'm not holding my breath, since it's clear he prefers making baseless allegations to actually backing them up.

I suppose that's quite possible, if randman had a really, really bad science teacher. Sad to say, there are quite a few of them in the country, and some pretty bad science textbooks, too. But just because some ignorant people teach bad science doesn't affect the good science one bit--and judging from what randman has posted regarding evolution, he was taught by some extremely ignorant people.

Daggah

In fact, some of this is actually the creationists' fault. They've so consistently been against thorough and comprehensive evolutionary biology education that it's no wonder that this subject isn't being effectively taught in America.