How To Define "Evolution"?

[PoliticalChic]

You aren't very good at this, are you, PC?

Maybe practice will make perfect, but you have had a long time to get better and haven't.

Must have been a workload for your professors.

What is this....three, four posts where you've tried to claim I'm either wrong or a liar.....and each time I've challenged you to document the charge.

Still waiting.

Since I'm my fav subject, I don't mind that every post of yours is simply an "I hate that you keep making me look like a simpleton" post.....that's really all they are.....

...but, heck, you are a simpleton.


If your claims were true...you'd have proven them.

But, alas, you can't. You started at the bottom...and it's been downhill ever since!




"You aren't very good at this, are you, PC."

Really....you keep proving how good I am at this.


I keep putting that "kick me" sign on your back.




This is still my fav description of you:
I wouldn’t say you’re useless…You’re the kind of a man that you would use as a blueprint to build an idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are talking about yourself.

You make an assertion than twist only the evidence to it that fits while ignoring the rest.

You are a research hack, PC.

Sorry but there you have it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are talking about yourself.

You make an assertion than twist only the evidence to it that fits while ignoring the rest.

You are a research hack, PC.

Sorry but there you have it.

Don't be sorry.

Every time you post without supporting your charges that I am wrong, or a liar, you support my contention, i.e., that you write that because I am correct in everything I say, and, in fact, you are self-identified as a liar.


What is this your fifth such post?




Your posts are perfectly understandable as coming from one of low character, embarrassed at being regularly beaten from pillar to post.

And, until you learn that I post the truth, my research is both deep and wide, you will continue to be embarrassed.

And I will be in your face like Cagney with a grapefruit half.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't get "just once more", because you deny when the proof is put before you, PC.

 

[orogenicman]

Where are the fossils that identify the steps leading to the signature organisms of the Cambrian Explosion?


They don't exist...do they.


So...you accept Darwin's thesis on faith.....it's your religion.

Admit it.

You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species. For instance:

The Origin of Animal Body Plans » American Scientist

The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals

Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion

Proterozoic and early Cambrian protists: evidence for accelerating evolutionary tempo

Now, my questions to you are do you believe that no plants or animals existed prior to earliest Cambrian? Where do you think the Cambrian flora and fauna originated?

'You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.'


That's pretty funny.

It's like you disputing the word 'cars' is a history of automobiles.


"The "Age of Trilobites" and the Cambrian Fauna
The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites....The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"...."

Yes, and the Holocene could be called the age of man, and yet there are millions of other species on this planet (most of which are more plentiful and more important to the global ecosystem than is man). Arguably the most abundant and more important life form during the Cambrian were the cyanobacteria (and still is).

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you don't get "just once more", because you deny when the proof is put before you, PC.

Where's your 'proof'?

Either you're very stupid or very, very lonely.
Don't answer that.


Sixth post.....with still no such 'proof.'


Jakal...I never asked for "just once more"....what is the reference?
You must be thinking of Phil Collins.


Please, continue to keep digging.


I await your seventh post with no 'proof.'

 

[Hollie]

PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."

Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.

I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.


"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??



More evidence?

Comin' right up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html



Whipped you again, didn't I.

Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph, princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of Origin of Species, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution, rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC has not denied the charge "You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species."

Yes, she has ignored the other Cambrian species.

I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.


"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??



More evidence?

Comin' right up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html



Whipped you again, didn't I.

Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph, princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of Origin of Species, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution, rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.

1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
....hmmmmm.......



3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

a. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....





4. "...denial of facts..."

Did you just ask for facts???

Got ya' facts right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html

 

[JakeStarkey]

Twisting of evidence gets you only a Fail, hack.

 

[Hollie]

I did exactly what Charles Darwin did.


"The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.


What you say now, boyyyyeeeeee??



More evidence?

Comin' right up:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html



Whipped you again, didn't I.

Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph, princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of Origin of Species, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution, rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.

1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
....hmmmmm.......



3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

a. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....





4. "...denial of facts..."

Did you just ask for facts???

Got ya' facts right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html

1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, gather round' everyone. In one paragraph, princess has refuted 150 years of evolutionary biology, paleontology, physics and the earth sciences.

It really is remarkable that the science loathing have somehow missed that in the 150+ years since publication of Origin of Species, evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories.

You may wish to review the above in the context of providing an acceptable alternative to the fact of evolution and a very old earth.. In addition, you expose yourself to a contradiction here: the fossil record from 350 million years ago clashes directly with creationist dogma for a very young earth.

For you edification, Origin of Species accomplished two very different things.

First:, it demonstrated through a comprehensive compilation of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, Darwin laid out the demonstrated case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.

His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.

Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; "Natural Selection." Evolution proves the objective criterion of "reproductive fitness" as the engine for driving biological change.

What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin's lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts. The hallmark of the scientific process is that it then takes such theories, and tests them ruthlessly. Exceeding Darwin's own hopes, the intensive pressure testing that continues even now, a century and a half after the first publication, has only strengthened the support for Darwin's theory.


We have vast amounts of hard scientific evidence that demonstrates evolution has actually taken place. For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc. Genetic evidence now allows us to also track such relationships at the biochemical level. Similar evidence comes from geology, anatomy, ecology, population genetics and related fields. Although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results.


As far as the idea of willful ignorance in denial of facts and evidence supporting evolution, rabid fundies are free to believe what they like. But to suggest that the varied sciences supporting evolution amount to vast conspiracy theories to prove the process of evolution and to prove an ancient earth is willfull ignorance and denial of what science has proven.

1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
....hmmmmm.......



3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

a. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....





4. "...denial of facts..."

Did you just ask for facts???

Got ya' facts right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html

1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?

I leveled you again, huh?

No answer to my post?




This is just too darn easy.

 

[Hollie]

1. "Hey, gather round' everyone."
I love attention! See...you do have a purpose in life!


2. " evolution has become among the best supported of scientific theories. "
Here's a guy who doesn't agree:
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer . . . Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great."
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, chapter Ten: On the Imperfection of the Geologic Record: On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata.pp. 164

What???

You say "best supported".....and Charles Darwin says he can't find said support...
....hmmmmm.......



3. "For example, we have large collections of transitional fossils that record the evolution of mammals from reptiles, birds from dinosaurs, amphibians from fish, whales from land dwelling four legged artiodactyls, etc."

Sure about that?

a. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)


Uh, oh.....you got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy.....





4. "...denial of facts..."

Did you just ask for facts???

Got ya' facts right here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...611-is-evolution-the-same-as-scientology.html

1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?

I leveled you again, huh?

No answer to my post?




This is just too darn easy.

You failed again.

I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Twisting of evidence gets you only a Fail, hack.

So....how about you untwist it?

I see you were unable to address any of the points in the post......as usual.


Is that because you're stoooooppppid?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Oh, my but princess is on a tear, cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

2. So tell us princess, where is the peer reviewed data submitted by Harun Yahya?

I leveled you again, huh?

No answer to my post?




This is just too darn easy.

You failed again.

I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?

You don't want to focus on any to the quotes that destroyed you???

Understandable.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.



The Origin of Species

Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings



He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.

Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.

 

[Hollie]

I leveled you again, huh?

No answer to my post?




This is just too darn easy.

You failed again.

I understand that cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is convenient, but why do you think your "quote mining" establishes anything but your ability to cut and paste?

You don't want to focus on any to the quotes that destroyed you???

Understandable.

You don't want to acknowledge your out of context cut and pasting from Harun Yahya?

Understandable.

 

[Hollie]

b. "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much -- ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, 50:22-29)

Uh, princess. How is it possible that: "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

Are you going to float a conspiracy that the fossil's disappeared? Where did they go?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie just hung PC out to dry and wither and blow away.

Onlyz a matturz a timez.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh my, princess. It seems Darwin didn't agree with you.



The Origin of Species

Chapter 10: On The Geological Succession of Organic Beings



He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean.

Passing from these difficulties, all the other great leading facts in palaeontology seem to me simply to follow on the theory of descent with modification through natural selection.

Oh, my little dummy.....you make this so easy.

Now watch closely as I skewer you...and you walked right into this:

1. "He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically,...."

Know what 'hypothetically' means?
Didn't think so.

It means "I guess."
That's your evidence?????
'I guess'???


So....that wasn't much of a quote you provided....not on your side. It supported my side.



3. Did you notice the mention of 'Silurian"?

I love this.
Know where the name comes from?

Get ready for your knock-out....


There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales.

Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:

"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.




Wow.....did you set yourself up or what??????


Your Darwin quote says 'I guess....'


And the famed geologist Murchison, says the evidence would ".... exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]





Hey....come back here!!!

Stop running away to hide!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hollie just hung PC out to dry and wither and blow away.

Onlyz a matturz a timez.

Moron.

Can't you read....

She flopped.....you must be used to that.