[Kerrigan]

Big Mac, since you've mentioned cosmologies, and how they supposedly influence scientific research, it may be appropriate to point out that I am a Christian. Not a Christian-lite, or "liberal" Christian.

Anyways, regarding your proposal: you have asked is for me to consider that since the evolution of molecules/species is "so complex" that it is unlikely. So on that basis, am I supposed to accept a hypothesis which is even more unlikely, to the point where it is impossible?

I've given you a multiple peer reviewed journal articles showing that the claims of creationists are "unpublishable", "at a high school level", "unscientific", etc. Perhaps you can bring to this debate a peer reviewed work showing that cells don't evolve?

(In this request, I won't accept any general philosophical statements about the nature of science, the role of God, any internet source, or anything from Wikipedia)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

In response to Kerrigan, I'm telling you that those scientists in the mainstream who reject ID outright are disqualifying it unnecessarily because it doesn't fit with their world view, and I'm asking you as an individual to apply the same standard you apply to ID to evolutionism.

To put it another way, evolution states that all life on the planet is as a result of random chance variation and the natural selection of desirable traits therefrom.

Intelligent Design states that certain aspects of biology are so complex that those aspects point to an intelligent designer rather than chance.

Think about both of those claims objectively for a moment. Think about the awesome living planet you're on. Can you identify which hypothesis, if either, requires a greater leap of faith? And what makes you come to that conclusion?

When I look at this universe, and how complex it is, I find the concept that it took billions of years to develop to be much less of a leap of faith than the idea that the whole thing was made instantaneously in six days.

[Kerrigan]

I agree, CharlesS. The fact that you even have to say that shows that creationism is a philosophical/religious issue, not a biological one.

For my part, it is perfectly plausible that God created the entire universe, set it into motion, and that along the line mankind developed. But the thought that God created the universe and then had to keep intervening, designing new species and miraculously causing mutations here and there, is a bit ridiculous. This is selling God short. And when God advises us to be "wise as serpents", how would it look to him to be deliberately adopting unscientific hypotheses in the face of *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary? This is foolish. The end.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

When you say biological evolution, do you mean the dominant model of evolution that rejects the possibility of a creator?

Not only is that not the dominant model, it's not even a model of evolution.

Either way, FYI, most all of Orthodox Judaism holds quite literally to the Genesis account.

Not according to that link I gave you, and not according to the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, whose position is published here. It may be like Christianity, where, for some reason, many people believe that their religion is inconsistent with the science, but when their official groups examine the issue and write policy statements, they almost always come to the conclusion that science is not incompatible with their religious beliefs.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Big Mac, since you've mentioned cosmologies, and how they supposedly influence scientific research, it may be appropriate to point out that I am a Christian. Not a Christian-lite, or "liberal" Christian.

Okay.

Anyways, regarding your proposal: you have asked is for me to consider that since the evolution of molecules/species is "so complex" that it is unlikely. So on that basis, am I supposed to accept a hypothesis which is even more unlikely, to the point where it is impossible?

You tell us it's impossible, and you cite various sources that disqualify it because it supposedly doesn't meet their scientific standard. I ask you to apply the same scientific standard to evolutionism and you decline. I see a double standard. Also, even if I were to take as a given the assertion that ID is not scientifically valid, that's still different from your claim that it's impossible.

I've given you a multiple peer reviewed journal articles showing that the claims of creationists are "unpublishable", "at a high school level", "unscientific", etc. Perhaps you can bring to this debate a peer reviewed work showing that cells don't evolve?

Are we talking about ID narrowly or creationism in general? Let's keep the topics straight.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

When I look at this universe, and how complex it is, I find the concept that it took billions of years to develop to be much less of a leap of faith than the idea that the whole thing was made instantaneously in six days.

So you think random chance variation (through genetic mutation) can explain all life on this planet? You think that genetic code can grow and become more complex through successive generations? You think species can morph into other species?

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

For my part, it is perfectly plausible that God created the entire universe, set it into motion, and that along the line mankind developed. But the thought that God created the universe and then had to keep intervening, designing new species and miraculously causing mutations here and there, is a bit ridiculous. This is selling God short.

I'll put your mischaracterizations of creationism aside. At least you find it plausible that a higher power is responsible for life as we know it. The next step is for you to seriously examine the science you believe to be sacrosanct. Based on what modern science found out about genetics, Evolution can be certified as a failed hypothesis of origins. The mainstream scientific community clings to it because despite its evident failure, they have no other explanation available to them that does not require design; they loathe to discard an hypothesis that has so successfully conned the public at large.

how would it look to him to be deliberately adopting unscientific hypotheses in the face of *overwhelming* evidence to the contrary? This is foolish. The end.

The end? We're just getting started. And to the contrary, the only evidence that is overwhelming is that evolutionism is absurd.

[Kerrigan]

Big Mac, I'm not even reading what you wrote. You asked me for evidence supporting my claim, and I gave it. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I easily found scholarly journals either reviewing published research, or publishing new research, which has been subjected to peer review, and which points towards the unscientific nature of creationism.

At this point, if you want me to seriously consider what you're saying, you have to do the same. If you can come back with actual evidence to the contrary, which is not an internet source (certainly nothing from Wikipedia) then maybe your argument will have some weight. But right now, my side of the argument has the necessary sources to be believable, while yours is vague and contains no citations.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you think random chance variation (through genetic mutation) can explain all life on this planet?

It can certainly explain the diversity of life on this planet.

You think that genetic code can grow and become more complex through successive generations?

Yup.

You think species can morph into other species?

Not morph per se, but they can definitely evolve over many generations, eventually forming new species.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Not only is that not the dominant model, it's not even a model of evolution.

The mainstream model of evolution discounts the possibility of a higher power. Some who believe in evolution may try to marry it to some belief in a higher power, but they are in the minority. The hypothesis of evolution was created in part as an attempt to explain origins without a creator.

Not according to that link I gave you, and not according to the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, whose position is published here. It may be like Christianity, where, for some reason, many people believe that their religion is inconsistent with the science, but when their official groups examine the issue and write policy statements, they almost always come to the conclusion that science is not incompatible with their religious beliefs.

That article states that religion is not incompatible with science. It does not rule out evolution as I do, but it also does not rule out ID. From the article you cited: "All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation." Now do you think that's at all compatible with the mainstream of evolutionary thought? It sounds like ID to me.

[Dakarʒ]

You're making evolution sound like a giant atheist conspiracy.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It can certainly explain the diversity of life on this planet.

Why change the question? Can it explain ALL life on this planet? To dredge up a thread of yore, do you believe pond scum contributed to your existence?

Yup.

Sure. Please tell me where can I find empirical evidence of net gains of functional DNA in nature.

Not morph per se, but they can definitely evolve over many generations, eventually forming new species.

There is no proof to be found anywhere to substantiate your belief in macroevolution. You have bought into an absurd belief system.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The mainstream model of evolution discounts the possibility of a higher power. Some who believe in evolution may try to marry it to some belief in a higher power, but they are in the minority. The hypothesis of evolution was created in part as an attempt to explain origins without a creator.

Absolutely, unequivocally, false. The "mainstream model of evolution" has zero implications for a higher power. And the hypothesis of evolution was absolutely not "created in part to explain origins without a creator." From everything I've read, Darwin was very conscious of how it might be taken by the church, and tried specifically to make sure it wasn't presented as an alternative to God, to the point of including in his book quotations from religious people saying that evolution was compatible with God and religion.

That article states that religion is not incompatible with science. It does not rule out evolution as I do, but it also does not rule out ID. From the article you cited: "All schools concur that God is the ultimate cause and that humanity was an intended end result of Creation." Now do you think that's at all compatible with the mainstream of evolutionary thought? It sounds like ID to me.

It is compatible with the mainstream of evolutionary thought as long as it doesn't reject basic science, it's as simple as that. And science has never disproven either of those statements, because they are not scientific statements, so they are not incompatible with evolution. (And BTW, that is not ID.) That policy statement explicitly accepts the science, and states that it is not incompatible with Judaism.

So my question is: Why are you rejecting these stances of your religion?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't wish to help the atheists out, but I have to ask what sources you're referring to. The only source that comes close to saying what you've said is an excerpt from Josephus that has conclusively refuted as an addition to the text by the Church.

I remember something from Pliny (which I couldn't find given a quick googling) and Tacitus (which I did find. That may or may not be enough proof for you (especially since we can't be sure what was original and what was added later for any of these sources). But that wasn't my point at all: we could find conclusive proof that he existed tomorrow, and that still wouldn't "prove" he was divine. And yet, it is the belief that he is divine that makes the difference.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

You're making evolution sound like a giant atheist conspiracy.

Of sorts, yes. It is scientific populism. Science starts out with the premise that a higher power is not responsible for given phenomena, so inevitably it has to draw a conclusion to that effect. That works well enough for most empirical studies, but it breaks down when one objectively looks at life on the planet and everything concomitant with it.

Mutations definitely do not explain it, but that's the only factor neo-Darwinists can point to. Mutations are errors in the genetic code; most mutations kill the host. And yet when you search for chromosomal mutations you find they serve as the general explanation for how evolution works. Can you think of a positive chromosomal mutation in the human genome? Think about the popular ones that you know, such as Downs Syndrome. Is that positive? There are a few that provide immunity to certain resident diseases, but they cause the people who have them other problems. But even if mutations were helpful, there's no possible way a sufficient number of beneficial mutations could ever be strung together to create a novel organism suited to its environment. The fact is, plants and animals produce offspring that are like themselves, not like other species. And when two different species mate, they produce infertile offspring. Now if you could show me a dog that gave birth to a badger, I'd become a champion of evolution. Heck, show me a transitional form of some sort. They don't exist; macroevolution does not and cannot occur.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Science starts out with the premise that a higher power is not responsible for given phenomena, so inevitably it has to draw a conclusion to that effect.

No, it doesn't start out with that premise.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Har! "Mutations definitely do not explain it" is also a starting premise that leads to the tautological conclusion that evolution can't be so! Comedy gold. In the clichés of this debate that's known as an argument from personal incredulity, fyi.

"There are a few that provide immunity to certain resident diseases, but they cause the people who have them other problems."

Yes, adaptation is almost always a trade-off. That's why none of today's species are "the best" at everything. They each are well suited to one niche and very poorly suited to hundreds of others. Humans are smarter than monkeys, but monkeys are better climbers. Humans have finer motor skills, but monkeys are stronger. One man's "negative" mutation is another man's "positive" one.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Science starts out with the premise that a higher power is not responsible for given phenomena,

Directly responsible, perhaps. It doesn't seem like an absurd premise given that what we know about the planet's age and beginnings don't match popular religions' creation stories.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Mutations definitely do not explain it, but that's the only factor neo-Darwinists can point to. Mutations are errors in the genetic code; most mutations kill the host. And yet when you search for chromosomal mutations you find they serve as the general explanation for how evolution works. Can you think of a positive chromosomal mutation in the human genome? Think about the popular ones that you know, such as Downs Syndrome. Is that positive? There are a few that provide immunity to certain resident diseases, but they cause the people who have them other problems. But even if mutations were helpful, there's no possible way a sufficient number of beneficial mutations could ever be strung together to create a novel organism suited to its environment. The fact is, plants and animals produce offspring that are like themselves, not like other species. And when two different species mate, they produce infertile offspring. Now if you could show me a dog that gave birth to a badger, I'd become a champion of evolution. Heck, show me a transitional form of some sort. They don't exist; macroevolution does not and cannot occur.

I'm not a scientist and I can not do this. I am not under the impression that our theories as we have them today are complete. Evolution could very well turn out to be a 'geocentric' type theory, but until something better comes along, I do believe that it is the most believable and rational explanation we have.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Can you think of a positive chromosomal mutation in the human genome?

If by "chromosomal mutation" you mean "trisomy," then no. I can think of a positive example of trisomy in nature, but it's not human. If you mean a mutation in a chromosome, then yes, I can think of several. For an extremely obvious example, take that super-strong kid we had like three threads about last month.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

But even if mutations were helpful, there's no possible way a sufficient number of beneficial mutations could ever be strung together to create a novel organism suited to its environment.

You'll have to elaborate on this point, because I see no reason why not.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The fact is, plants and animals produce offspring that are like themselves, not like other species. And when two different species mate, they produce infertile offspring. Now if you could show me a dog that gave birth to a badger, I'd become a champion of evolution.

This betrays a very basic lack of understanding of what evolution entails. You should educate yourself on the topic before you talk about it with such certainty.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Heck, show me a transitional form of some sort. They don't exist; macroevolution does not and cannot occur.

All species are transitional forms. I can find you primitive species in the same family as other species and primitive structures that later became more recognizable organs, but as long as mutation is occurring, it's all transitional.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Mutations are errors in the genetic code; most mutations kill the host. And yet when you search for chromosomal mutations you find they serve as the general explanation for how evolution works. Can you think of a positive chromosomal mutation in the human genome?

Yes.

[Kerrigan]

Big Mac, in case you forgot, I'll re-post this:

...you have to do the same. If you can come back with actual evidence to the contrary, which is not an internet source (certainly nothing from Wikipedia) then maybe your argument will have some weight. But right now, my side of the argument has the necessary sources to be believable, while yours is vague and contains no citations.

In other words, give us some credible evidence to work with. Well-meaning vagaries don't cut it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

He simply believes in something that you don't. That's arrogance?

No arrogance is claiming that he knows the truth and everybody else is simply stupid to not see it:

Originally Posted by Taliesin

For scientists crossing that line would mean to be selfish and prideful, arrogant and ignorant, as well as being incompetent, for me as a religious person, crossing that line is even desired as religions deal mostly with topics that cross the boundaries of the physical/material world.

His posts are simply dripping with arrogance and snobbery.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Intelligent design has been utterly invalidated? Link?

Surely you are joking. Evolution, as theories goes, have a massive amount of evidence behind it. Intelligent design doesn't even have testable hypotheses. It's simply just anti-science.

[BRussell]

"Now if you could show me a dog that gave birth to a badger, I'd become a champion of evolution."

That just has "MacNN forums sig" written all over it.

[- - e r i k - -]

Big Mac sure came out and showed his true colours today.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Har! "Mutations definitely do not explain it" is also a starting premise that leads to the tautological conclusion that evolution can't be so! Comedy gold. In the clichés of this debate that's known as an argument from personal incredulity, fyi.

Mutations cannot be the source of new genetic information required to produce macroevolution. At best mutations can further adaptation to a particular environment. A human will always be human, a tiger always a tiger, a rat always a rat. I accept microevolution because it is backed up by facts and it is reasonable. I oppose macroevolution because it is not backed up by facts it is not reasonable.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If by "chromosomal mutation" you mean "trisomy," then no. I can think of a positive example of trisomy in nature, but it's not human. If you mean a mutation in a chromosome, then yes, I can think of several. For an extremely obvious example, take that super-strong kid we had like three threads about last month.

Yes, trisomy is one such chromosomal mutation. As for super strong dog and kid, those aren't chromosomal (the type of mutations credited for driving macroevolution), and although they appear to enjoy advantages from their muscle growth it was stated explicitly that the condition has adverse affects, often including mental impairment.

This betrays a very basic lack of understanding of what evolution entails. You should educate yourself on the topic before you talk about it with such certainty.

I am disappointed in you, Chuckit. I didn't think you would resort to rhetoric of that kind. Unless you have a B.S., I probably have taken more college science courses than you have. Why don't you tell me where you think I'm wrong, specifically, instead of attacking the messenger?

All species are transitional forms. I can find you primitive species in the same family as other species and primitive structures that later became more recognizable organs, but as long as mutation is occurring, it's all transitional.

You apparently don't know the term as it's used in the evolutionary context. A transitional form is one that has traits of more than one species, which would provide proof of an evolutionary link between said species. If evolution were true, we'd expect to see living transitional forms all around us, not just a scant number of fossils that evolutionists claim to be transitional with very little proof.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Big Mac sure came out and showed his true colours today.

We've had this debate before, erik. I have made it known that I think macroevolution is absurd. Btw, head shaking doesn't win debates.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Yes.

I was genuinely curious about this and I didn't see how the first three links applied to be honest. (that's all I checked for now) Can you elaborate?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I was genuinely curious about this and I didn't see how the first three links applied to be honest. (that's all I checked for now) Can you elaborate?

It's a mutation that causes an increased resistance (almost immunity) to HIV, in short.

Some believe that it dates back the Black Plague, where some were able to resist the effects of the plague.

Edit: I can't read the research stuff either, though that some may have been able to. There is a lot of information in understandable terms if it's done as a normal Google search.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

We've had this debate before, erik. I have made it known that I think macroevolution is absurd. Btw, head shaking doesn't win debates.

Neither does sticking your head in the sand and being wilfully ignorant - then proudly displaying that ignorance thinking it's a winning argument.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

It's a mutation that causes an increased resistance (almost immunity) to HIV, in short.

The first two examples (or maybe 1st and 3rd) seemed to be nothing more than the forcing of infection upon resistant cell lines in an effort to explain tropism and at first I didn't get how this applied. A little more research on CCR5 and 32D and voila. Thank you by the way.

Some believe that it dates back the Black Plague, where some were able to resist the effects of the plague.

Edit: I can't read the research stuff either, though that some may have been able to. There is a lot of information in understandable terms if it's done as a normal Google search.

I'm usually pretty good with the dry stuff, but I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something and I in fact, did.

*Completely as an aside for the extremely knowledgeable; are there other ways these hosts can be infected with HIV other than through sexual transmission?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Completely as an aside for the extremely knowledgeable; are there other ways these hosts can be infected with HIV other than through sexual transmission?

It's transmitted through blood. Blood transfusions with infected blood, shared needles, getting infected blood on an open wound, etc.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*Completely as an aside for the extremely knowledgeable; are there other ways these hosts can be infected with HIV other than through sexual transmission?

Rumor has given a comprehensive list.
There are a few urban myths of how you can get HIV: saliva, you practically cannot transmit HIV via kissing or contact with saliva. Babies of HIV-positive mothers are likely to become infected (15-30 %) if left untreated.

Also note that according to the Swiss CHAT survey, half of the people were infected by their long-term partner, so buckle up, people

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Mutations cannot be the source of new genetic information required to produce macroevolution.

All mutations are the "source" of new genetic "information," if you insist on using that misleading terminology. Every mutation is new compared to its predecessor. Since I suspect you are referring to the fallacy that "new information" means "more DNA," you'll be happy to know that one of the most common types of mutation is a "duplication." I'll leave it as a thought exercise for you to imagine how something called a "duplication" might lead to more DNA than before, and how after that 2 copies of a previously identical DNA sequence might diverge through point mutations to become 2 independant genes, where before there was 1.

Some species even have a protein which probilistically raises the number of DNA duplication mutations in response to stress, with the result that individuals faced with stressful conditions have a better chance of evolving themselves out of it.

A human will always be human, a tiger always a tiger, a rat always a rat.

The distant descendants of a human might not all be human though.

[and although they appear to enjoy advantages from their muscle growth it was stated explicitly that the condition has adverse affects, often including mental impairment.

Since when does evolution require that the "more-evolved" individual isn't also more mentally impaired? If being super strong is more beneficial in your environment than being super smart, which one do you think is going to thrive more?

Why don't you tell me where you think I'm wrong, specifically

I'll do it. If a dog ever gave birth to a badger, that would actually disprove the theory of evolution, and people would probably call it proof of creationism. More generally, evolution means species evolve into _new_ species, not into other _existing_ species. Do you see the difference?

If evolution were true, we'd expect to see living transitional forms all around us, not just a scant number of fossils

We do, of course. Apes are transitional forms between monkeys and humans, for example. They share many traits with monkeys and not humans, and they share many traits with humans but not monkeys.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

All mutations are the "source" of new genetic "information," if you insist on using that misleading terminology. Every mutation is new compared to its predecessor. Since I suspect you are referring to the fallacy that "new information" means "more DNA," you'll be happy to know that one of the most common types of mutation is a "duplication." I'll leave it as a thought exercise for you to imagine how something called a "duplication" might lead to more DNA than before, and how after that 2 copies of a previously identical DNA sequence might diverge through point mutations to become 2 independant genes, where before there was 1.

You have a mighty lot of mights in those statements. Seems like a lot of wishful thinking. More importantly, whenever we see inadvertent duplication or deletion of gene sequences, we see deleterious effects on the host creature. Please don't deny it, unless you want to admit to being intellectually dishonest.

Some species even have a protein which probilistically raises the number of DNA duplication mutations in response to stress, with the result that individuals faced with stressful conditions have a better chance of evolving themselves out of it.

You think stress changes DNA? Please provide a citation for that wild claim.

The distant descendants of a human might not all be human though.

Guaranteed they'll still be human.

Since when does evolution require that the "more-evolved" individual isn't also more mentally impaired? If being super strong is more beneficial in your environment than being super smart, which one do you think is going to thrive more?

A mentally retarded human is not more fit for any environment. Guaranteed.

[quote]I'll do it. If a dog ever gave birth to a badger, that would actually disprove the theory of evolution, and people would probably call it proof of creationism. More generally, evolution means species evolve into _new_ species, not into other _existing_ species. Do you see the difference?[quote]
It was a colorful analogy. Let me put it for those who are dense: If a dog ever gives birth to something other than a dog, I'll become a champion of evolution.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

We do, of course. Apes are transitional forms between monkeys and humans, for example. They share many traits with monkeys and not humans, and they share many traits with humans but not monkeys.

I am sorry, but with this single comment you lose, Uncle. Go back and take a course in physical anthropology. Apes are most definitely not a transitional form between monkeys and humans. According to evolutionists, chimps and humans had a common ancestor way back when but took different evolutionary paths. You won't be able to find a single scientist to back up your claim. You're just plain wrong; I have demonstrated greater knowledge of evolutionism, and your other smarmy comments are of no significance. Better luck next time.

Oh, and btw Chuckit, you brought up trisomy. For all those who don't know about it, do a google search of that term and then switch to Google Images. Doesn't exactly work out well for humans, does it? Again, evolution is nonsensical and debunked long ago when humanity found out about the complexity of the DNA of even the simplest organisms.

[Uncle Skeleton]

"A transitional form is one that has traits of more than one species"

Apes fit that definition perfectly. Want to backpedal now?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Each individual is different, yes? This is something that is agreed on outside the context of origins stories, right? There was never anyone exactly like you in the history of humanity, correct? No other Big Macs with exactly the same traits? If you can agree to this, then surely you must grasp the concept that IF one modern species is the descendant of a "transitional form" individual by any definition, then that individual will not be around for us to examine today, because it lived long ago. It is not still alive. Even if its species is still alive, we won't be able to see the exact individual will we? All we'll be able to see is another individual that is by definition, different. That's not science or theory, that's just plain simple logic.

How can you claim that "transitional forms" would be _expected_ to still be walking around for us to examine? Wouldn't they be different (related, but different) today than they were when the "transition" was occurring? If not, why not?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"A transitional form is one that has traits of more than one species"

Apes fit that definition perfectly.

Let me repeat, again, apes are not transitional species. That's not me talking, that comes straight from evolutionists. You don't know what you're talking about, so I refuse to argue the point with you.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Each individual is different, yes? This is something that is agreed on outside the context of origins stories, right? There was never anyone exactly like you in the history of humanity, correct? No other Big Macs with exactly the same traits? If you can agree to this, then surely you must grasp the concept that IF one modern species is the descendant of a "transitional form" individual by any definition, then that individual will not be around for us to examine today, because it lived long ago. It is not still alive. Even if its species is still alive, we won't be able to see the exact individual will we? All we'll be able to see is another individual that is by definition, different. That's not science or theory, that's just plain simple logic.

We're not talking about the individual level. We're talking species. And no, I do not agree with your premise that a transitional species must be definition be extinct. (It sounds like you're the one back peddling.) Transitional species should still be around unless all of them were so unfit that they could not survive, whereas the succeeding species they supposedly gave birth to could succeed. And that doesn't make any sense.

In other words, if transitional species had an edge due to their partial mutations (), they would have a competitive advantage even if subsequent mutations () proved to be superior (). We should see humans with ape feet (if you wish to persist in claiming apes are transitional). We should see birds with hands. We should see fish with feet, like the little Darwin fish has. Why is that we don't see such blends all over nature, if the blind watchmaker of evolution went through billions of generations of trial and error to get to where we are today? We don't see those things because they never existed. Evolution is a lie you buy into either because you're incapable of independent critical thought or because the concept of a Creator is frightening to your very core.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Let me repeat, again, apes are not transitional species. That's not me talking, that comes straight from evolutionists. You don't know what you're talking about, so I refuse to argue the point with you.

Are these the same "evolutionists" who think evolution means a sheep giving birth to a badger? Seriously, I am perplexed as to where you're getting this stuff. You seem like a smart enough guy, but a lot of the information you seem to have been given about evolution is positively wacky and doesn't reflect what anybody in this thread thinks.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Like I already said, I think God is necessary for even the movement of a single particle, not to speak of its existence in the first place, so consequentially natural selection as consisting of billions of interacting particles, is so much more in need of God.

Taliesin

I know what you are saying and you are more than welcome to think that and be happy about it.

All I'm saying is that scientists have no need to tag on your extra supernatural element when they're working out their sums. Neither do I when I'm out enjoying the natural world.

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are these the same "evolutionists" who think evolution means a sheep giving birth to a badger? Seriously, I am perplexed as to where you're getting this stuff. You seem like a smart enough guy, but a lot of the information you seem to have been given about evolution is positively wacky and doesn't reflect what anybody in this thread thinks.

If most creationists actually understood evolution then they probably wouldn't be creationists.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Graviton 

However, evolution is no more atheistic than relativity, cell division, atomic theory or any other scientific theory. Just because 'God' isn't mentioned that doesn't mean it's anti-God. Science deals with the natural world. Things that can be observed and tested and theorised. Tthe supernatural, unfortunately, likes to leave no evidence of it's existence.

You can blame God for that, not science..

I agree, science can't incorporate God, since God is invisible and science deals only with the material empirically testable world.

If God is working all this in the background or it is doing it on it own are questions that are not within the fields of science. What counts is that things happen in the material world and to find laws and systems that can reliably predict what will happen in the future.

As long as theories can predict reliably they are valid.

Tries therefore to use science to make claims about God's existence or non-existence are futile.

Taliesin

[Graviton]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

I agree, science can't incorporate God, since God is invisible and science deals only with the material empirically testable world.

If God is working all this in the background or it is doing it on it own are questions that are not within the fields of science. What counts is that things happen in the material world and to find laws and systems that can reliably predict what will happen in the future.

As long as theories can predict reliably they are valid.

Tries therefore to use science to make claims about God's existence or non-existence are futile.

Taliesin

I agree about the science not proving/disproving God thing, but there is no reason to suggest that certain mechanics of the universe need a God to help them along, so it can be reasonably suggested that they work just fine without one.

I'll use an analogy to show you what I mean

The theory that when a cue ball is struck it will travel along the pool table works without the need to have invisible pixies pushing it along. Now somebody can believe that invisible pixies do indeed push the cue ball along, but the mechanics of motion and kinetic energy etc show that it works just fine without them being needed in the equation. Occums razor could easily snip off the Pixies and a nice game of pool can reasonably be said to work without their aid, even though their existence has been neither proved nor disproved. The Pixies become a matter of 'faith', not necessity.

I wouldn't insult your intelligence by suggesting that a God is the same thing as a pixie, I'm aware of the differences, I'm just saying that both would be articles of faith in regard to this analogy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Let me repeat, again, apes are not transitional species.

Repetition is not demonstration. Repetition is what you do when you can't defend your claims.

That's not me talking, that comes straight from evolutionists.

Well you sure stated it as if it was your own. Dishonest debate much?

You're the one who demanded that "transitional forms" must be found in order to convince you. You're responsible for saying what constitutes a "transitional form." You did, I provided one, it wasn't what you thought, now it's on you to come up with a definition which would satisfy you.

You say it "comes straight from evolutionists," then it should be no trouble for you to cite your source. Otherwise, I'm accusing you of making it up as a straw man. J'accuse!

We're not talking about the individual level. We're talking species.

Species are made up of individuals. It's the individuals which mutate and adapt.

And no, I do not agree with your premise that a transitional species must be definition be extinct.

I never said they "must," I said that by probability we would expect most of them to be extinct. Some of them remain.

Transitional species should still be around unless all of them were so unfit that they could not survive, whereas the succeeding species they supposedly gave birth to could succeed. And that doesn't make any sense.

Why doesn't that make sense? There's only so much room on the earth for life. Not every species that ever existed can continue to exist forever. Monkeys evolved into apes (different as they may or may not be from today's apes), and apes evolved into humans. Some type of ape was the "transitional form" between monkeys and humans, and some type of man-ape, let's call him bigfoot, was a "transitional form" between apes and humans (and more "transitional forms" between bigfoot and humans). The humans out-competed the bigfoot, and now he's gone. Humans of 10,000 years ago we significantly shorter and smaller than humans of today, and we taller larger humans outcompeted them. In 100 years, all the apes may very well be extinct, and future Big Macs will be scratching their heads wondering what the link could be between monkeys and humans. After all, if there are no apes left alive today, how could they possibly have ever existed?

We know that animals go extinct (right? from fossils, and from watching it happen. do you doubt extinction too?), how can you say "it doesn't make any sense" for "transitional forms" to go extinct?

In other words, if transitional species had an edge due to their partial mutations (), they would have a competitive advantage even if subsequent mutations () proved to be superior ().

"If the model-T had an advantage on the road over horses, they would have a competitive advantage even if subsequent auto-mobiles proved to be superior... why don't we still see model-Ts on the road!? They must never have existed."

We should see humans with ape feet (if you wish to persist in claiming apes are transitional)

What makes you think we don't? How do you explain Robbin Williams?

We don't see those things because they never existed. Evolution is a lie you buy into either because you're incapable of independent critical thought or because the concept of a Creator is frightening to your very core.

Let me see if I understand your "critical thought process." If we don't see something walking around today, it must never have existed... but you attribute everything otherwise unexplainable to a Creator that you don't see walking around today. Yeah, that makes perfect sense priceless.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Creationism is a lie you buy into either because you're incapable of independent critical thought or because the concept of evolution is frightening to your very core.

Seems to work just as well that way.

[amazing]

I keep checking into this thread to see if it's evolved much.

Doesn't seem to have--but I haven't given up on evolution yet! It just needs some natural selection events...like maybe famine or glaciation. Right now, I can't think of any forum events, unless maybe the moderators can come in as "deus ex machina?"

Anybody really think that somebody else's firmly set opinion is going to change?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I do!

[CharlesS]

Well, since my last post, it has become clear that Big Mac has no interest in a calm, rational discussion here. I should know better than to wander into the PL.

I'll just answer this one question:

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Why change the question? Can it explain ALL life on this planet?

Because that's not what evolution is about. Evolution explains why there are different forms of life, and how new species develop. It doesn't address the origin of life, which is another topic entirely.

To dredge up a thread of yore, do you believe pond scum contributed to your existence?

Life began with unicellular life forms, but they were certainly not the same as the modern organisms that constitute "pond scum," so no.

If you are narcissistic enough that it bothers you to have descended from something simple, then I'm sorry to hear that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Are these the same "evolutionists" who think evolution means a sheep giving birth to a badger? Seriously, I am perplexed as to where you're getting this stuff. You seem like a smart enough guy, but a lot of the information you seem to have been given about evolution is positively wacky and doesn't reflect what anybody in this thread thinks.

As I said in my last response, that was a colorful analogy. My point was, a dog will always give birth to a dog, and if it gives birth to something viable that isn't a dog then I'll become a champion of evolution. As for the evolutionists to which I'm referring, I'm referring to professors with doctorates in anthropology and biology. In any event, you can attack the messenger with meritless remarks, but it's apparently much harder for you to form a cogent response to the substance of my arguments.

[Big Mac]

Again, Uncle, just because you claim today's apes are a transitional species doesn't make it so. It just reveals your ignorance of the scientific field you're advocating.

Most of the quotations found here are decades old, but they're still valid. Here are some of them:

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species found in the successive stages of the same great formation?" (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.343).

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977, p. 14).

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (Kitts, David B. [Professor of Geology, University of Oklahoma], "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p.467).

"Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

".. I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p.89).

"It takes a while to realize that the 'thousands' of intermediates being referred to have no obvious relevance to the origin of lions and jellyfish and things. Most of them are simply varieties of a particular kind of creature, artificially arranged in a certain order to demonstrate Darwinism at work, and then rearranged every time a new discovery casts doubt upon the arrangement." (Hitching, Francis, [Writer], "The Neck of the Giraffe: Or Where Darwin Went Wrong," Pan: London, 1982, p27)

"Although the relationship of the rhipidistians to the amphibians will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, it should be said here that none of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of developing the stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive tetrapods." (Stahl, Barbara J. [Professor of Biology, Saint Anselm College, USA], "Vertebrate history: Problems in Evolution," Dover: New York NY, 1985, p.148).

"Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.' (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984], Master Book Publishers: El Cajon CA, Fourth Edition, 1988, p89).

"The transition to the first mammal which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Bones of mammals' ancestors fleshed out," Science, Vol. 212, 26 June 1981, p.1492).

"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species. (Kemp, Tom [Curator of the Zoological Collections, University Museum, Oxford UK], "The reptiles that became mammals," New Scientist, Vol. 92, 4 March 1982, pp.581-584, p.583).

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism, confirmed by the work of population genetics, and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." (Mayr, Ernst [Emeritus Professor of Zoology, Harvard University], "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1988, pp.529-530).

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate," [1995], p.hoenix: London, 1996, p.95).

"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3).

"Zircon dating, which calculates a fossil's age by measuring the relative amounts of uranium and lead within the crystals, had been whittling away at the Cambrian for some time. By 1990, for example, new dates obtained from early Cambrian sites around the world were telescoping the start of biology's Big Bang from 600 million years ago to less than 560 million years ago. Now, with information based on the lead content of zircons from Siberia, virtually everyone agrees that the Cambrian started almost exactly 543 million years ago and, even more startling, that all but one of the phyla in the fossil record appeared within the first 5 million to 10 million years."We now know how fast fast is," grins Bowring. "And what I like to ask my biologist friends is, How fast can evolution get before they start feeling uncomfortable?" (Nash, J. Madeleine [journalist], "When Life Exploded," Time, December 4, 1995, p74.

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and `fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).

"For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record," said Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, "and they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related." (Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p.883).

"The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G. [Assistant Professor of Geology, Harvard University], "Morphological stasis and developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p.214).

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt (John and Miklos 1988, 307)." (Wesson, Robert G. [political scientist and philosopher], "Beyond Natural Selection," [1991], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1994, reprint, p45).

"Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Canada ], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27).

"Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229).

"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Again, Uncle, just because you claim today's apes are a transitional species doesn't make it so.

No, you saying so makes it so. You're the one who has to define what you mean by "transitional forms," you did, and it describes apes to a T.

You're also the one who complained about "no new information," I p0wned you, and you haven't acknowledged that either.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before it will sink in?

Most of the quotations found here are decades old, but they're still valid. Here are some of them:

Those are all about fossils! You've just gotten through harping on how fossils are irrelevant and all you care about are modern existing species which you can see walking around. Now you're going to hang your hat on fossils? Why can't you stick to your guns?

As for fossils, they're still being discovered all the time, not to mention the fact that their formation in the first place is very haphazard, and not necessarily representative of life in general. The (current) absence of fossil discoveries doesn't prove there's no evolution, just like the absence of miracle evidence doesn't prove there's no God. Absence of evidence is not evidence.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Again, Uncle, just because you claim today's apes are a transitional species doesn't make it so. It just reveals your ignorance of the scientific field you're advocating.

Most of the quotations found here are decades old, but they're still valid. Here are some of them:

"He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geolog ... illion years..." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107).

You, sir, win the award for pointless thread-bombing. Congrats!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, you saying so makes it so. You're the one who has to define what you mean by "transitional forms," you did, and it describes apes to a T.

No, it really doesn't. As I said, you're uneducated on your own science. If you took a course on physical anthropology you'd learn a whole lot about what evolutionists truly believe, and they most definitely do not believe apes are the transitional form to humans. As I said before, they claim that we and apes had a common ancestor. You keep repeating the same ignorant claims.

You're also the one who complained about "no new information," I p0wned you, and you haven't acknowledged that either.

You're a fool. Errors in genetic code don't produce new information, they damage the original code. Do you know anything about the sheer complexity of genetic coding? If you did, you would know that it would take an unbelievably huge number of precise errors in code (a contradiction in terms) to produce the kinds of differing functionality found between the species. What you and the other gullible sheep of our species have been duped to believe is that there's any plausibility to that model of change. It would be like believing that errors in computer code could somehow write completely new, functional routines and algorithms given enough time. Corruption in computer code produces dysfunction, just like it does in the genetic code most all of the time. (And even in the very rare cases where the mutations are beneficial, the changes to the code are tiny, certainly far from enough to produce novel species.)

And while you deride the critiques by evolutionists of the fossil record found in those quotations, what those quotations are speaking of is not just the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record but also the immediate appearance of forms in the record without any preceding transitional forms to be found. I doubt you even bothered reading that post because it's too much to bother you with facts from your own scientists.

How many times do you have to be proven wrong before it will sink in?

You never proved a single thing.

The (current) absence of fossil discoveries doesn't prove there's no evolution

But Darwinian evolution hangs its hat on gradualism, which means there should be all kinds of transitional forms in fossil form and in living species. There most definitely are not, and this was such a significant problem to evolutionists that one of their leaders, Gould, came up with a contradictory model that still does not satisfactorily account for species development. Gould came up with punctuated equilibrium based on what the fossil record indicates - that most all species pop up suddenly with no preceding forms to be found. One of the courses I took focused on punctuated equilibrium for a considerable amount of time, yet the course never provided a scientific explanation for how punctuated equilibrium evolution could possibly work. The most they could say is that something in the environment causes sudden change. No proof. No hypothesis to explain how a natural system can suddenly produce all sorts of novel species with no preceding genetic framework as a basis. No hypothesis about what that environmental factor could be. No hypothesis to account for why we've never seen punctuated equilibrium with human eyes. No real science of substance. Just a model that contradicts Darwinian evolution and points us back to a Creator. That's what you have when you examine modern evolutionary thought with some modicum of objectivity.

Look, Uncle, it's a rule of mine to discontinue arguments with those unequipped to debate on rational terms. I have made my case. I have demonstrated that evolution is a falsehood because a) gradualism has been refuted by the lack of transitional forms (both fossil and living) as well as by the inconceivability of mutations serving as the catalyst of production and b) there is not even any attempt to explain how punctuated equilibrium can work on natural terms. At this point, sensible readers can make up their own minds.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

You, sir, win the award for pointless thread-bombing. Congrats!

Perhaps if you weren't so deeply invested in an illogical explanation of origins, you'd take the time to read that post and see the point.

And that, my friends, is truly The End.