question

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley
The problem isn't limits in genetics, even if they exist. It's that there's no limit to man's imagination. The evidence doesn't matter at all. Evolution can accomodate any evidence whatsoever because it's based almost entirely on speculation.

ATTENTION ALL: This is not a fact, but merely what Nick Petreley wants you to believe. His belief is based on words he took at face value from three or four scientists who he doesn't believe when they discuss almost anything else. You are ill-advised to give any attention to his bald and false allegations on this matter.

This lion and tiger don't obey the expected rule of speciation? No problem! We can imagine that they can interbreed because they have a common ancestor, which makes perfect sense even though two mosquitoes who we KNOW have a common ancestor cannot interbreed!

Open mouth. Insert foot. Everyone is encouraged to read this rant twice!!

"For some reason" there is no evolutionary history in the fossil record for the cambrian explosion? No problem! We can imagine that the bones were probably too soft to make any fossils. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Is this a misconception promoted avidly by creationists about bot the cambrian "explosion" and what evolutionary history precedes it in the fossil record?

Why yes. It is. Apparently Nick has bought the lie. That doesn't mean you have to follow his lead though!

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Miller2.html#Keith B. Miller*

This fossil evidence looks like new forms suddenly appear in stages? No problem! We can imagine that gradualism speeds up really fast all of a sudden now and then, and call it punk eek.

Malarkey. Gould's books on Punctuated Equilibrium are in bookstores everywhere. If you are interested in what the theory really says, and what its relevance is to the fossil record, I recommend you read it. Don't take Nick Petreley's word for it.

If you are interested in the fossil evidence for evolution, or why stasis is observed at the species level, browse this forum, browse the TalkOrigins archives, browse your local library. Don't take Nick Petreley's word for it.

If you are interested in what "sudden appearance" means, and how it comes about, browse this forum, browse the TalkOrigins archives, browse your local library. Don't take Nick Petreley's word for it.

If you don't believe me that Nick's assertions are untrustworthy, browse this forum.

Phylogenies branch in unexpected directions? No problem! etc...

???

Criminy

 

[randman]

"This fossil evidence looks like new forms suddenly appear in stages? No problem! We can imagine that gradualism speeds up really fast all of a sudden now and then, and call it punk eek."

Jerry, Nick is right here. You can imagine PE, but there a re no fossils showing it. What the fossil do show looks very much like creationism.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"This fossil evidence looks like new forms suddenly appear in stages? No problem! We can imagine that gradualism speeds up really fast all of a sudden now and then, and call it punk eek."

Jerry, Nick is right here. You can imagine PE, but there a re no fossils showing it. What the fossil do show looks very much like creationism.

I don't know much about PE. I do know that a claim that it is imaginary made by Nick has no credibility. I will leave it to the advocates of PE to defend PE.

What about the fossil record looks like creation? After you answer that, can you tell me anything else about the fossil record, and whether that "something else" also looks like creation?

Most importantly, what would we expect creation to look like, and why?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


ATTENTION ALL: This is not a fact, but merely what Nick Petreley wants you to believe. His belief is based on words he took at face value from three or four scientists who he doesn't believe when they discuss almost anything else. You are ill-advised to give any attention to his bald and false allegations on this matter.

Oooh, bold even. What's the matter. Am I beginning to make too much sense?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

No Nick, I think he is implying that others sould research for themselves since he deems your info unreliable.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
No Nick, I think he is implying that others sould research for themselves since he deems your info unreliable.

Wow. Well, I deem almost all evolutionist information to be unreliable. Maybe I should just set my keyboard on caps lock and bold everything I say.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by npetreley


Wow. Well, I deem almost all evolutionist information to be unreliable. Maybe I should just set my keyboard on caps lock and bold everything I say.

*sigh* Why not, it can't make you look any worse.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

Well, I deem almost all evolutionist information to be unreliable.

Huh. You might want to go after heliocentrism, they are contradicting a lot more of the Bible, and the evidence is nearly as shaky.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by seebs


Huh. You might want to go after heliocentrism, they are contradicting a lot more of the Bible, and the evidence is nearly as shaky.

Or chemistry and electronics, maybe. You know Millikan fudged his oil-drop experiments, but those VERY SAME experiments are still being done in science classes today!?

 

[randman]

Stasis and sudden appearance look exactly like creationism.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Stasis and sudden appearance look exactly like creationism.

So divergence and appearance only after similar forms exist looks like what?

 

[DonaldW112]

Originally posted by npetreley


Wow. Well, I deem almost all evolutionist information to be unreliable. Maybe I should just set my keyboard on caps lock and bold everything I say.

No Nick I am sorry you lost it. Please study some science (please, please, please, ....) before you post again. You would expect nothing more if I posted about LINUX (expect this line to be cut in his response).

 

[randman]

"So divergence and appearance only after similar forms exist looks like what?"

Well, as we are talking about on another thread, some species don't appear to diverge and evolve at all. So I think you overgeneralize about the fossil record.

But all of the data fits quite neatly into a model with God working like an artist, and producing works along the lines of earlier works, and so forth, and occasionally doing something completely different in appearance.

It may be that God used evolutionary means at time, and special creation means at other times, such as in creating human beings, but thus far, the evolutionary side to things isn't well-documented in the fossil record.

I also question the mode and causes of evolution. In my view, if evolution occurred, it seems so implausible as to demand non-natural inteference at different stages.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"So divergence and appearance only after similar forms exist looks like what?"

Well, as we are talking about on another thread, some species don't appear to diverge and evolve at all. So I think you overgeneralize about the fossil record.

But all of the data fits quite neatly into a model with God working like an artist, and producing works along the lines of earlier works, and so forth, and occasionally doing something completely different in appearance.

It may be that God used evolutionary means at time, and special creation means at other times, such as in creating human beings, but thus far, the evolutionary side to things isn't well-documented in the fossil record.

I also question the mode and causes of evolution. In my view, if evolution occurred, it seems so implausible as to demand non-natural inteference at different stages.

So stasis and sudden appearance look like creation, and divergence and appearance after similar forms exists also looks like creation, right?

The fossil data fits descent with modification with natural selection, and the all of the data together fits it like a glove. The stasis in the fossil record is not a problem and is predictable from the mechanism of natural selection.

Seeming implausible isn't evidence. It is hard for people who have lived less than a century to imagine what kind of changes evolution can produce in millions or hundreds of millions of years. The fact that we cannot imagine it doesn't detract from the fact that there is a strong record of it in our bodies, in our genes, in the geographical distribution of our flora and fauna, and in the fossil record. This record can be accounted for by nothing except common descent.

Maybe God played a part in it - maybe he planned the whole thing, knowing what contingencies would lead to the kind of earth and the kind of life He was interested in. Maybe God faked the whole thing: maybe the whole setup was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of age and evolution, or maybe he made numerous special creations in an attempt to give the appearance of evolution. Who knows.. that is all supernaturalistic speculation, better suited for the Apologetics forum.

 

[randman]

The problem is that millions of years pass without any change in some species. The data doesn't fit evolution like a glove. That is the problem.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
The problem is that millions of years pass without any change in some species. The data doesn't fit evolution like a glove. That is the problem.

Don't forget selective mutation (mistakenly referred to among evolutionists as "mutation with selection"). Things in the past mutated whenever evolutionists need them to have mutated in order to fill in a gap in the fossil record.