That's an answer my question? No, it's another subject change. Let's look at how the little dance has gone so far.
It starts with a chest-thumping, mocking demand for evidence:
"How about half a wing, maybe fossiled. Or an intemediate between cats and dogs..any link!"Evidence was provided, including three pictures and a link,
here in Post 428.Your response? No acknowledgment or explanation, just a shifting of defense lines:
"Why isn't the fossil record one continuous change, instead of entirely separate suddenly appearing 'kinds'?"So now there are not as many transitionals as there really should be. This is a new story, one that must logically begin with "OK, indeed there are SOME..." etc. However, clearly EVEN THIS is not going to be conceded despite it having been demanded and produced.
So many militants are never wrong, even when they're wrong. Here, you implied that some things could not be produced at all and I showed they could, right? When you don't concede the really, really obvious, you look slippery.
I straightforwardly answered the question,... as did PH and others. It's just yet another thing you have wrong. And once again I linked evidence for what I was saying.
Your answer?
"If you think the 'gaps' are filling in, you're way out of date. Read: "Evolution, a theory in crisis", Denton.Wave arms, appeal to authority. (ID-ist Denton.) "I can't answer you directly but Denton did." For the record, Denton cannot possibly have demolished the statement that Darwin himself reconciled his theory to the geologic column. Anyone can recheck what Darwin himself wrote and whether anyone but creationism is imposing unrealistic expectations upon geology. And he certainly can't have rebutted my main point about the gaps.
I zeroed in on your denial (via Denton) that the gaps are filling in at all.How anyone could imagine that Denton is running around undiscovering the evidince which has been linked for you I leave the lurker to figure. That reply included pointing out:
"You darwinites always want to talk about God. Have you checked the updated horse evolution theory?"If anyone's keeping score here, I've provided a lot of evidence. You have repeatedly answered the rebuttal of one misstatement with a change of story--to another misstatement. Now you're down to little more than verbal crucifixes to keep the evolution vampire off. "Denton!" "Horses!" Only now it's "Gould!"
Yes, there are lots of creationist lies about Gould, too. He answered most of them at various times before his death. You have nothing worthy of a science student's attention to take into science class, unless the particular area of study is abnormal psychology.
For some reasonable guy who's just concerned about "the science," you are arguing in an incredibly slippery manner. You have also failed to raise a single reasonable concern.
But what you fail to appreciate -- what you wicked evos always fail to appreciate -- is that notwithstanding the ease with which each and every one of the creationists' arguments is rebutted -- the impressively huge number of such arguments is overwhelming, and more than sufficient to carry the day.
</flaming creationoid mode>
Really, you can believe what you want to believe. But it's not real science. Tell me how natural selection is a creative [ ooh, the word!] force. Accidental mutations do not explain upward complexity.
I'm tired of trying to show the blinkered unwelcome facts. Thanks for now.....