Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[whois]

Given the Gould quotes above, would you say that Gould believes that there are transitional fossils?

i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.

 

[bhsmte]

i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.

What Loudmouth posted from Gould already answered the question, as to Gould's position on transitional fossils.

The question is, do you acknowledge what Gould states in Loudmouth's post, or do you simply deny it?

 

[Loudmouth]

i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.

Neither of which were written by Gould.

By Gould's own words, would you say that he thinks there are transitional fossils?

 

[whois]

Neither of which were written by Gould.

By Gould's own words, would you say that he thinks there are transitional fossils?

see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.

 

[bhsmte]

see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.

Evasion won't help you this time.

 

[Loudmouth]

see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.

IOW, you are going to ignore Gould's own words and continue with your fantasies.

 

[The Cadet]

see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.

Look, you can try to twist Gould's words all you want, but the man was extremely vocal about his views both on transitional fossils and on how creationists misrepresent his contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology. To pretend that he somehow believed that there were no transitional fossils, or that this was a problem for evolution, is simply untenable and contradicts virtually all of the man's work, both in the scientific literature and the popular literature.

 

[bhsmte]

Look, you can try to twist Gould's words all you want, but the man was extremely vocal about his views both on transitional fossils and on how creationists misrepresent his contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology. To pretend that he somehow believed that there were no transitional fossils, or that this was a problem for evolution, is simply untenable and contradicts virtually all of the man's work, both in the scientific literature and the popular literature.

This has been pointed out to this poster countless times, but they continue on with the same.

The ideology, must be protected.

 

[whois]

Look, you can try to twist Gould's words all you want, but the man was extremely vocal about his views both on transitional fossils and on how creationists misrepresent his contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology. To pretend that he somehow believed that there were no transitional fossils, or that this was a problem for evolution, is simply untenable and contradicts virtually all of the man's work, both in the scientific literature and the popular literature.

that's exactly why i have refered loudmouth to the issue of science and to the upload i provided.
it gives the context.
like other matters along these lines, come to your own conclusion.

edit:
the issue isn't about gould anyway.
it's about what niles and ayala said.
neither of them made any reference to "at the species level"
tell me, what is a transitional fossil at the species level anyway?
they allegedly found a whole trainload of them with hominids.
this is just another reason i question the entire paradigm of evolution.
honestly, there is so much fraud and deceit, it's a miracle that anyone buys it at all.
in my opinion, the only reason evolution has half a chance is because it's the only thing that makes sense, it certainly isn't because we have all this hard core evidence.
science has failed at the creation of life from inanimate matter, and given what they know about genetics, has yet to change one animal into a different kind.

 

[bhsmte]

that's exactly why i have refered loudmouth to the issue of science and to the upload i provided.
it gives the context.
like other matters along these lines, come to your own conclusion.

Many have come to their own conclusion, you haven't noticed?

 

[The Cadet]

wrong.
it was written by both of them.

By the way: Loudmouth is right. You're mistaking the title line for the author line. Just in case it's not clear enough:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331943?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This lists Sepkoski as the sole author. So do these:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-004-2084-5
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ntitative_Revolution_in_American_Paleobiology

Indeed, it would be quite bizarre to have Gould as an author, given as the paper was written in 2005, three whole years after Gould's death.

 

[bhsmte]

By the way: Loudmouth is right. You're mistaking the title line for the author line. Just in case it's not clear enough:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331943?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This lists Sepkoski as the sole author. So do these:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-004-2084-5
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ntitative_Revolution_in_American_Paleobiology

Indeed, it would be quite bizarre to have Gould as an author, given as the paper was written in 2005, three whole years after Gould's death.

Gould may have spoken to him, from his grave.

 

[whois]

By the way: Loudmouth is right. You're mistaking the title line for the author line. Just in case it's not clear enough:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331943?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This lists Sepkoski as the sole author. So do these:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-004-2084-5
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ntitative_Revolution_in_American_Paleobiology

Indeed, it would be quite bizarre to have Gould as an author, given as the paper was written in 2005, three whole years after Gould's death.

like i stated in the edit, the issue wasn't about gould.

 

[bhsmte]

Run for the hills.

 

[RickG]

Run for the hills.

I wonder if he might understand a quote mine from the bible?

 

[pat34lee]

How so? In your own words, please?

There is no transitional path from tiny 3 toed weasel looking horses to todays 1 toed horse. There are several paths of supposed horse genealogy going larger and smaller and horses with different numbers of toes living at the same time. The only thing that fossils prove about horse breeds is that there were once many different types that died off.

 

[pat34lee]

Nowhere does any textbook on thermodynamics claim any such thing. This is something you have made up from whole cloth.

Let's take a look at the oceans. They are warmer at the equator and cooler at the poles. That is an ordered system, and it is maintained due to the energy coming in from the Sun. A disordered ocean system wouldn't have currents or differences in temperature. It would be at equilibrium. The fact of the matter is that thermodynamically improbable chemical reactions can be made probable by the addition of energy. That's the real science.

The fact that you have a moon pulling at the oceans would tend to keep them from ever reaching equilibrium.

Take a small, say 100 piece puzzle. Add energy of any type. Did it self-assemble? Add more energy: heat, friction, wind, radiation, whatever. Still not working? The only thing that unmanaged energy will do is destroy it. The only way to assemble the puzzle is by controlled aplication of force to each piece to place them according to the pattern from which it was made.

 

[pat34lee]

Heat has done nothing to increase order in that pan. Patterns are not the same as information. That goes for crystals and snowflakes too.

 

[The Cadet]

There is no transitional path from tiny 3 toed weasel looking horses to todays 1 toed horse.

What a bizarre claim. Citation, please?

Heat has done nothing to increase order in that pan. Patterns are not the same as information. That goes for crystals and snowflakes too.

Information is something we read into semi-random patterns! Any semi-random physical phenomenon can be used as a "source" for information, be that phenomenon the code of DNA or the type and location of atoms in a rock. Could you please define your terms?

 

[whois]

Take a small, say 100 piece puzzle. Add energy of any type. Did it self-assemble?

incorrect analogy.
i hate to break it to you, but that's exactly what happens with inorganic chemistry.
all ya gotta do is bring the atoms required into close proximity, add energy, and POOF, they join.
the situation with organic chemistry is just a tad different in that some reactions require a catalyst, but it's essentially the same scenario.