Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
It’s called spin. For an honest appraisal of the fossil record by evolutionists in good standing, see post #19.
What I don’t get is folks editorializing with the title of the thread, something certainly not unique to you. Isn’t that what the comments section is for?
The reason they're called creationists is because the just make it up as they go. It's not really lying you know, it's just creating!
I just checked you posting history and found that you have posted to multitudinous threads with parenthetical editorializing, and yet you failed to frown upon this common practice time and again—until me. Very interesting...
How did you make that trilobite pic?.......
==The reason they’re called creationists is because the just make it up as they go.
I think you have us confused with the Church of Darwin.
When I read Darwin’s book it looked like the kind of thing that would sell maybe 500 copies and be forgotten. It’s a horrible piece of work. I imagine it was somebody else that popularized the idea and immediately applied it to society. Biology had little use for it at first, and still doesn’t except in taxonomy.
I haven't read Eldridge's specific response to being mischaracterized, but I have read Gould's. He thought people who interpreted punctuated equilibrium as conflicting with Darwin were liars or idiots.
GGG: How *DARE* you add a snide remark to the sanctified evolutionary title!
Don’t you know mocking evolution is akin to throwing a Koran in the toliet. Somethings are just too unacceptable and hurtful to the feelings of others... you should be more seeeeeensitive to their feeeeeeeeeeelings.
Like South Park said:
“Our Science is great. [walks away from the table and stands before a wall] Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. [a painting is shown, with Dawkins in it] Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. [More of the painting is shown: Mrs. Garrison appears] But it wasn’t until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you. [turns around] Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground!”
I thought the title was randomly evolving to fit a niche.
==He thought people who interpreted punctuated equilibrium as conflicting with Darwin were liars or idiots.
That’s because he was Chicken. Nowhere in Darwin’s theory of evolution do you find anything remotely resembling Punctuated Equilibrium.
I wouldn't call it editorializing. I would call it misreading. What I can't understand is how someone could be so stupid as to post an article demonstrating their inability to read.
Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms. Falconer has given a striking instance of a similar fact, in an existing crocodile associated with many strange and lost mammals and reptiles in the sub-Himalayan deposits. The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus; whereas most of the other Silurian Molluscs and all the Crustaceans have changed greatly. The productions of the land seem to change at a quicker rate than those of the sea, of which a striking instance has lately been observed in Switzerland. There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low: though there are exceptions to this rule. The amount of organic change, as Pictet has remarked, does not strictly correspond with the succession of our geological formations; so that between each two consecutive formations, the forms of life have seldom changed in exactly the same degree.
In less than 6 minutes you checked all 5,920 of my replies. You are VERY highly evolved.
And btw, is that another one of your ways of editorializing, changing my comment from “I don’t understand” to “frown upon”?
Does referring to something as the church make it a negative?
I’m sorry I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you truly don’t understand why people editorialize, perhaps you should avoid politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.