How To Define "Evolution"?

[JakeStarkey]

So we see PC guessing, just like her hero.

Nuance, PC, is strange to you, yes, we know.

You fell trying to get out of the batter's box.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Your “quote” was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "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. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, 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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions 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 — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”


So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Don't you fanatics understand English???


Not as simple as you are....but simple.

What were originally treated as indicia of transition, upon closer inspection, have proven not to be so.




Done in by your IQ once again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any creationist or IDer is automatically a victim of circular logic.

Accept a manuscript that has been reworked so many times as literalist, without any empirical support and ballast of importance, and you end up with someone like PC.

That's why students from sectarian home schooling go off the rails in faith dissolution once they get to those instructors who employ critical thinking and the use of empirical data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we see PC guessing, just like her hero.

Nuance, PC, is strange to you, yes, we know.

You fell trying to get out of the batter's box.

Stop it.....you're killin' me!


Take it to to open mic night at the Ice House comedy club!

 

[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.

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!!!

Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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!!!

Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.

The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Your “quote” was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "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. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, 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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions 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 — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”


So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?

"... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."

You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?

 

[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?

Don't you fanatics understand English???


Not as simple as you are....but simple.

What were originally treated as indicia of transition, upon closer inspection, have proven not to be so.




Done in by your IQ once again.

Uh, princess, do you understand that your sloppy cutting and pasting involves cutting and pasting material that is fraudulent?

That's been the history of your participation. You simply dump creationist nonsense into threads which means you become an accomplice to forgery, incompetence, lies and creationist "quote-mining" of edited, parsed and falsified "quotes".

Basically, you're just a fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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."




BaZing! - YouTube





Hey....come back here!!!

Stop running away to hide!!!

Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.

The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.

Another empty post?




I must have really wounded you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your failure to respond to this outs you, PC. It's over.

Any creationist or IDer is automatically a victim of circular logic.

Accept a manuscript that has been reworked so many times as literalist, without any empirical support and ballast of importance, and you end up with someone like PC.

That's why students from sectarian home schooling go off the rails in faith dissolution once they get to those instructors who employ critical thinking and the use of empirical data.

 

[Hollie]

Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Your “quote” was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "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. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, 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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions 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 — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”


So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?

"... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."

You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?

You don't realize that "quote" of yours was a fraud?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh my, princess, you and the Christian creationist / zealot crowd have a credibility problem of your own… well… creation. When the fundies manufacture data, manipulate data, lie, cheat and steal in failed attempts to present a 6,000 year old earth, evolution as a fraud and science being subservient to bible teaching, your claims come crashing to the ground. These sad, diseased meanderings of scouring the bowels of the web and “quote mining” Christian creationist websites is a common tactic of fundies.

Your “quote” was familiar and and manipulated, edited and parsed to misrepresent what the author actually wrote.

Review: Fatal Flaws | NCSE

In his chapter on "fossil follies", Hanegraaff quotes David Raup, the curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago: "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. ... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time" (p 17). Hanegraaff's reference for this quotation is Paul Taylor's Illustrated Origins Answer Book. If he had read Raup's original article ("Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 1979; 50 [1]: 22–9), he would have discovered what Raup really said on page 25 was this, with the portions quoted by Hanegraaff italicized:

”Well, 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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions 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 — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”


So what are we left with, princess? Are you simply a liar or a pathological liar?

"... now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years..."

You don't realize that that quote of yours disputes Darwin?

You don't realize that "quote" of yours was a fraud?

PC does not care. In this sense of lack of academic integrity, she ranks with the Nazi race ethnologists.

 

[Hollie]

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."




BaZing! - YouTube





Hey....come back here!!!

Stop running away to hide!!!

Oh my princess, you're cutting and pasting so much Harun Yahya nonsense, are you losing track of your creationist sources.

The comedy queen of research and lack of data, our own PC, is killing the audience.

Sorry princess. The Murchison "quote" was previously addressed by Stephen Gould.

Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History - Stephen Jay Gould - Google Books


Hey. Come back. Don't run away. We'll get to your fraudulent "quotes" one by one.

 

[Hollie]

1. So moving on to another of princesses "quotes", we're on the horns of a dilemma.

2. Princess cut and pasted this "quote":

"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.

3. Well, I found the document so entitled, but oddly, the "quote" is a sentence snipped from a more thorough desscription.

4. Here's a link to the document.
http://www2.nau.edu/~bio222-c/Reserve Reading/RR1/Field_1988.pdf

5. Princess, can you provide us with a description of what you would expect us to observe with such "historical continuity". Can you explain this?

6. Here's a possible solution, princess. Why don't you provide the exact citation and a link to the exact "quote" you cut and pasted?

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC often misattributes citations to quotes.

Always, always check her citations and the primary sources.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC often misattributes citations to quotes.

Always, always check her citations and the primary sources.

You're lyin' again.


I dare you to find one such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Several have been provided above.

We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .

 

[PoliticalChic]

Several have been provided above.

We won't tolerate your fabrications any longer without metaphorically making you swallow your lies .

I asked you to provide some lies.

1."Several have been provided above."

So....you can't come up with any....shocker.

Got you again, didn't I, Loooooooossser.


2. "We won't tolerate..."

You and your tapeworm?


3. "...making you swallow your lies."

But I just proved that there aren't any!!

Now I'll have to go find a snack elsewhere.



I hate being redundant....but this is soooo 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.

 

[midcan5]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU]Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children - YouTube[/ame]