Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: microgood
VadeRetro: I was throwing antihannity's dumb-bleeping back in his face.

microgood: So you were lying when you posted all those supposed transitional fossils.

Always, always you bludgeon with your ability to misunderstand. This doesn't make you a scientist. It simply forces people to ask themselves whether you're telling the truth about what you know. Did no one before me ever try to explain this stuff to you? You've said as much. That seems improbable, given that you've been on these threads a bit. And yet you really don't seem to know anything.

Will you be back again dumb as a stump on the next thread claiming no one ever explains evolution to you? Even if we believe that, again, how do you know it's wrong if no one has ever even explained it to you and you've never tried to Google it on your own or went to the library and checked out a non-cretinist book?

What's supposed to be a lie about the fossil evidence? How do petrified bones lie?

The fossils posted inline and/or linked are real. Those arranged in a series occur in the fossil record in the order shown. They indeed show a transformation in progress. Creationist strawman versions of evolution like yours and antihannity's say this progress should reveal a dinosaur changing into a bird or a mouse changing into a bat--one actual individual or mouse fossilized mid-transformation in one generation. And how would the fossil of one individual even show that? All a fossil can do is just lay there.

Evolution says whole populations change over time. The average genetic makeup of the average individual within the population changes. "A shift in allele frequences," is a common term. I prefer the classical Darwinian "variation and natural selection," which is still accurate anyway.

So now you're going to know this, right? Wrong! You're a back-again-dumb-as-a-stumper.

So now if I go along with gradual evolution than you have to see transitional fossils but you have just stated there aren't any so I have to buy into punctuated equilibrium, which is good for you evolutionists because then I would not see any fossils. I guess this means you are a punctuated equilibrium type like Gould.

Puctuated equilibrium is a Darwinian model. I suppose no one has ever tried to tell you about that, either. I post the following web sites so the lurkers can learn something. One thing they'll learn is that there's no excuse for you showing up on the next thread as ignorant as you are today, which you will do come Hell or high water.

Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium, including lots of links to lots of examples.

All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost). Nicely documents how little new there is to punk-eek.

I am not a creationist.

No, you're a lying a$$hole.

I just do not believe evolution is correct.

People generally don't twist themselves into pretzel shapes for no reason. Your behavior is absolutely classic militant Holy Warrior Syndrome. Think more about what your story is before the next thread where you show up knowing nothing nothing nothing but spewing away nevertheless.

123 posted on 02/18/2005 5:35:43 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Always, always you bludgeon with your ability to misunderstand. This doesn't make you a scientist. It simply forces people to ask themselves whether you're telling the truth about what you know. Did no one before me ever try to explain this stuff to you? You've said as much. That seems improbable, given that you've been on these threads a bit. And yet you really don't seem to know anything.

I am not trying to fool anyone or act like an idiot. And I am sorry if I did not understand your statement about the transitional fossil. The only reason I called you a liar was because you called me an idiot and I wanted to keep with the spirit of the conversation.

I understand most of the issues related to evolution and the one I have the hardest time with is macroevolution as have other prominent evolutionists. I also understand the punctuated evolution was a Darwinian model which was later emphasized again by Gould because he believe it was not as smooth a transition between species as within species.

I found this article which explains a lot of what I was curious about, although it does not address (at least not completely) why we do not see species undergoing major transformations between species today. But from the article I read,it appears we have some ideas about why there are not any, but we just do not know for sure. In other words for Gould, we know historically macroevolution happened, we see no evidence of it currently, and Gould suspects it may have something to do with the genes that control formation of the embryo.

As far as explaining how a creature goes from no leg to a leg, there has been one person on FR that gave an explanation how something that did not have an eye could develop an eye over many generations. It was not something that could be proved, just a possible explanation.

The article that kind of gave me some of what I was looking for was The Return of Hopeful Monsters
183 posted on 02/18/2005 12:19:27 PM PST by microgood (Washington State: Ukraine without the poison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson