Quote:
And how exactly are the other posters meant to understand what it is?
Well, Clyde, my guess would be that they could use an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or the magic "search engine" to understand it [chronospecies]-the same way I would expect any normal, inquisitive person to.
Quote:
Heh, and all the other of your out of context quotes? Hmm..? I guess we should just quietly forget those...
That quote is by whom? So you've managed to quote a paleontologist who it "appears" does not believe in evolution, excellent, and which university did he go to? The university of creation science? =)
I apologize if any of the quotes are truly out of context. I took them from what appeared to be a reliable source, as it discussed pros and cons of both sides without giving any sort of conclusion.
That said, you are supposed to look at the quotes objectively. For the record, the paleontologist(he does believe in evolution, just admits that there is not the supposed abundance of fossil evidence) is NILES ELDREDGE, as I said before. I'm pretty sure that he did not graduate from the university of creation science, but you might want to check up on that, just to make sure. He might have.
Quote:
Funny how 99.99999% of paleontologists believe in evolution, funny that.
And in the middle ages 99.99999 of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth, (considering there were 100 million scientists, and that there are 100 million paleontologists)
Quote:
The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’
So Patterson thinks that "statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record?" That's interesting considering that such statements are made all the time. Is Patterson another one of those telling lies to children?
Quote:
Well, 1) Microevolution does indeed pretty much imply macroevolution, did you read my explanation of how evolution worked?
Yes I did read it. Basically you say that there are errors copying genetic information (simplification), which results in small changes in characteristics, which sometimes (but not most of the time) result in "improved" "performance" in the organism's habitat, which results in the passing of the characteristics to the rest of the population. Over long periods of time, the sum of these changes results in "new" organisms."
And this explanation is supposed to explain to me how mammals, that give birth to living creatures, evolved from reptiles?
You are going to have to explain more clearly.
Quote:
Dr Jones replied: "Here's my example; it's come up in the last ten years. Two species of salmon in American lakes. And in the last twenty years
they've split into two forms, one big, one small, one goes to the sea, one stays at home. That's the origin of species seen in our own lifetime"
I assume Jones is referring to this
Quote:
The salmon study took place in Lake Washington, Washington State.
The fish were first placed there in 1937. Since then, they have split into two separate populations which prefer not to breed with each other.
One group adapted to breeding in a river environment. The others laid their eggs on the lake's beaches. As a result, the two populations have developed slightly different physical features.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci...000/979950.stm
They prefer not to breed with each other. According to BSC, that is not speciation. They have to be proved incapable of reproduction to be considered separate species (simplification).
Quote:
Evolution predicts exactly the kind of "imperfections" we observe in organisms, hence it would seem reasonable to conclude that those imperfections can be seen as evidence for evolution (thought they also are evidence against creation).
Of course it does! The imperfections are so vague and difficult to intepret that a lot of theories could do that. For the imperfections to qualify as evidence for the occurence of evolution, it has to be shown that no other theory can account for said imperfections. As is, they are merely evidence for the possibility of evolution. And how can they be seen as evidence against evolution?
Quote:
For a conclusive debunking of creationist nonsense regarding Therapsid and the reptile-mammal transition go here (it also explains very clearly what the fossil record shows):
The site explains very clearly what the fossil record shows indeed. Convergence in the structural aspect does not prove direct descent!
Quote:
Now i keep answering your questions how about you answer some of mine?
You appear to believe that I am a creationist, when I stated no such thing. Your habit of assumption doesn't say much for the suitability of your mind for science. I stated very clearly that I believe in a guided evolution. In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth. However, I do not think that it merits the status of fact.
And I love your accusations of standard "creationist tactics." The evolutionsits of course partake in no such behaviour? When Goldschmidt came out with his idea, he was reviled and ridiculed in a fashion that would make Josef Goebbels envious. When Dembski published papers on Intelligent Design Theory (a far cry from special creation) he got the same treatment.
BTW, here is an interesting paper by a scientist in the field of molecular and cell biology
http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.asp