"BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies that were studied?"
Hoist by your own petard.
[[Hoist by your own petard]]
Petard- had ot look that one up.
1: an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, form a breach in a wall, etc.
Are you saying I firecrackered myself?
[[”BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies that were studied?”]]
I was NOT implying that they were ALL from ONE species KIND- as well, I was making hte point that you were making it seem in your responses that there were 300 seperate KINDS that ‘showed a nice neat clear line of evolution of all completely different KINDS- this is hte point I was trying ot make- My Gaff was not making it clear that there are infact not 300 different KINDS- I wasn’t intentionally making that gaff- when I said 300 fossils of the same species, I was assuming you thought that since everythign has common descent, that they were all the same species. The point I was trying to make was not that there were 300 of the same species KIND but 300 of the same species within the KINDS- as I explained, there are 8 or so major group KINDS, and the point I was tryin to make was that the 300 fossils were all of the same KINDS- not 300 seperate KINDS
This is an important point- because if there were infact 300 KINDS showing the jawbones moving clearly backerds, then the case would be much stronger for your case for common descent and the interelations of the jaw bones- however, the fact that there is no connection showing hte relatedness of the major species KINDS, means that the examples given, show nothign but species specific variation well within the norms of adaptive limitations and should be expected in species KINDS, but does nothign to show a ‘clear evolution of the ear hearing system’.
Again- it wasn’t my intention to mislead- I didn’t clarify precisely enough what I was talking about and that led to misunderstanding- My statemnt should have said “BUT 300 FOSSILS of the SAME wpecies “KINDS” of the 8 or so major groups that were studied?”]] and “300 different species “KINDS” Ahayes? I took for granted that you knew that I wasa refering to that, and obviously you didn’t. I’m not backtracking here, nor trying to cover up- this was really my intentions which unfortunately were not relayed very well in print- but instyead of accusing me of lying- several times infact- and quite adamantly- it weould have been nice if oyu simply took that statement I made and asked me to clarify it more- I didn’t see the mistake at the time and wasn’t intentionally attempting to make a false statement. If you know my writings here- you know that I constantly stress KINDS because this is germane to my poijnts beiung made and it was something I wishjed to point out in my statements- So no- I wasn’t intentionally lying, I simply gaffed by not being clear and precise enough in my statements- but thank you for making a mountain out of a molehill