Oh look, more "science" falls by the wayside..unethical study

[westwall]

Westwall and Drock continue to insist that what they KNOW is irrefutable, DESPITE the lack of evidence.

Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.

What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.

No, it's really not. What is close minded is a Creationist who thinks that God isn't capable of creating a world that confounds men who refuse to accept his Word. It's sheer arrogance that you think you have figured out the creation timeline of the world, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way to know for sure.

And we don't know for sure. We think we have it down, then another discovery comes along and puts the lie to whatever the current fad is.

You insist on putting words into my mouth that I did not say and I don't appreciate it. Why would God create a world to confound man? What possible reason could he have for doing such a thing? It has no bearing on mans belief in God, it has no bearing on how man treats man, it has no reason at all. On the other hand if God creates this wonderful universe over billions of years and for the most part sits back and watches, he get's to observe man discover the wonders of nature, he gets the thrill of watching His creation discover how the natural world works.

In other words, in one case he is a malevolent git who enjoys playing dirty tricks on His creation and in the other God is a creator who sets up the universe and then sits back to see how it all comes out. His creations are allowed to discover things for themselves and for the sake of the discovery itself. The quest for knowledge that has driven man since man became man.

If there is a God I know which version I respect more.

 

[koshergrl]

Men are confounded by it because they refuse to accept the word of God. It's always been that way. When we get into trouble is when we second guess God, and try to make him fit OUR idea of what he should be like, or what he is, based upon our own limited view of the universe.

I haven't put any words in your mouth. I recognize the apologist in you, though.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh little turnip, you should actually read the paper; he is not validating your post at all. Sorry about your retarded luck.

I demonstrated to you that speciation has been, and is, observed in nature. Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion.



Consider yourself dismissed, Potatohead.

Lowest, you give new meaning to the phrase "…galactically stupid…"

Now, be sure to get back to me as soon as you've completed a course in reading comprehension.

On second thought, don't bother getting back.

You're all sauce, and no meat: so no. I will.

The new meaning = YOU.

Go ahead PotatoheadChic, put a fork in yourself. Either after you read Koonin's paper or now ... in either case, you're wrong. Anyone else with an atom of sense who reads the paper can see it.

"Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion."
Really?
Koonin: "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” Did you get that?

I have no responsibility to pander to one who views clear and concise language…and claims he sees the very opposite.

The quote reprises the view that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,
No series of changes leading to a new species: the new species simply appears.

Rather, just as a creationist would expect, new species spring, fully equipped, like Topsy.(Is that reference too literate for you?)

Yet you deny the very language itself.

I won’t use the offensive term that you enjoy throwing into almost every post…but now I see why it has such a personal meaning to you.

Either you fail to understand the import of Koonin's quote, or you you are prevaricating...which is it?

 

[koshergrl]

Both.

 

[koshergrl]

Loki is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. He believes he's saying something, he just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.

 

[LOki]

Lowest, you give new meaning to the phrase "…galactically stupid…"

Now, be sure to get back to me as soon as you've completed a course in reading comprehension.

On second thought, don't bother getting back.

You're all sauce, and no meat: so no. I will.

The new meaning = YOU.

Go ahead PotatoheadChic, put a fork in yourself. Either after you read Koonin's paper or now ... in either case, you're wrong. Anyone else with an atom of sense who reads the paper can see it.

"Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion."
Really?

Yes, really.

Koonin: "In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” Did you get that?

I have no responsibility to pander to one who views clear and concise language…and claims he sees the very opposite.

The quote reprises the view that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,
No series of changes leading to a new species: the new species simply appears.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

Rather, just as a creationist would expect, new species spring, fully equipped, like Topsy.(Is that reference too literate for you?)

Yet you deny the very language itself.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

I won’t use the offensive term that you enjoy throwing into almost every post…but now I see why it has such a personal meaning to you.

Either you fail to understand the import of Koonin's quote, or you you are prevaricating...which is it?

Nowhere ... NO-FUCKING-WHERE! ... does Koonin make the assertion "...that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,"

You superstitious intellectually dishonest retard. READ THE PAPER!

 

[LOki]

Both.

^^^
Idiot.

 

[LOki]

Loki is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. He believes he's saying something, he just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.

koshergrl is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. She believes he's saying something, she just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.​

Still works perfectly! You see, koshergrl can't find a single prevarication that she can base her accusation upon. Sweet!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Westwall and Drock continue to insist that what they KNOW is irrefutable, DESPITE the lack of evidence.

Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.

What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.

There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.

That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.

This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.

Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com

 

[koshergrl]

Loki is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. He believes he's saying something, he just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.

koshergrl is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. She believes he's saying something, she just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.
​

Still works perfectly! You see, koshergrl can't find a single prevarication that she can base her accusation upon. Sweet!

Prevarication provided. See above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're all sauce, and no meat: so no. I will.

The new meaning = YOU.

Go ahead PotatoheadChic, put a fork in yourself. Either after you read Koonin's paper or now ... in either case, you're wrong. Anyone else with an atom of sense who reads the paper can see it.

"Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion."
Really?

Yes, really.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

Rather, just as a creationist would expect, new species spring, fully equipped, like Topsy.(Is that reference too literate for you?)

Yet you deny the very language itself.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

I won’t use the offensive term that you enjoy throwing into almost every post…but now I see why it has such a personal meaning to you.

Either you fail to understand the import of Koonin's quote, or you you are prevaricating...which is it?

Nowhere ... NO-FUCKING-WHERE! ... does Koonin make the assertion "...that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,"

You superstitious intellectually dishonest retard. READ THE PAPER!

Ohhh,,,,you poor, sad, fool.

I can tell from the language that you know that you have lost the argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I hate to rub it in (actually, I don't):

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

(Emphasis, and giggle, mine)

Now, write soon, Lowest.
There's a dog biscuit in it for ya'!

 

[bodecea]

Where are all the idiots who jump all over these studies when they come out and immediately proclaim that we must all acknowledge the superiority of "science" over "common sense" or "faith".

"A University of Connecticut researcher who studied the link between aging and a substance found in red wine has committed more than 100 acts of data fabrication and falsification, the university said Wednesday, throwing much of his work into doubt.
Dipak K. Das, who directed the university's Cardiovascular Research Center, studied resveratrol, touted by a number of scientists and companies as a way to slow aging or remain healthy as people get older. Among his findings, according to a work promoted by the University of Connecticut in 2007, was that "the pulp of grapes is as heart-healthy as the skin, even though the antioxidant properties differ."
"We have a responsibility to correct the scientific record and inform peer researchers across the country," Philip Austin, the university's interim vice president for health affairs, said in a statement."

Red wine-heart research slammed with fraud charges | Reuters

And........they caught it.

 

[koshergrl]

One wonders what they haven't caught, though, doesn't one?

For example...the twin study that established homosexuality is hardwired that was discovered to be a sham, the perps disgraced..and yet still the rumor persists...."homosexuality is hardwired". And loons insist on believing it because at some point, someone, somewhere said there was a "scientific study" that supported it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Wrong. We KNOW very little (comparatively), that's why we are allways looking. I have just shown you how every year we are presented with new facts that challenge the paradigm. Why do you insist on ignoring what I post? I have also posted evidence as has Loki that refutes your contention and you CHOOSE to ignore it. I am not responsible for your close mindedness. That's all on you.

What's truly sad is we are both creationists. I just understand that nature takes a lot longer to work her magic. You "believe" that God did everything in a few days, I "believe" that it took a hell of a lot longer. You remind me of the Albigensians who were hunted down and killed by the Spanish Inquisition because they argued about how many Angels could dance on the head of a pin. Imagine that. Entire regions of southern France were exterminated over that pithy a reason. That is the type of closed mindedness you are exibiting now.

No, it's really not. What is close minded is a Creationist who thinks that God isn't capable of creating a world that confounds men who refuse to accept his Word. It's sheer arrogance that you think you have figured out the creation timeline of the world, despite the fact that there is absolutely no way to know for sure.

And we don't know for sure. We think we have it down, then another discovery comes along and puts the lie to whatever the current fad is.

You insist on putting words into my mouth that I did not say and I don't appreciate it. Why would God create a world to confound man? What possible reason could he have for doing such a thing? It has no bearing on mans belief in God, it has no bearing on how man treats man, it has no reason at all. On the other hand if God creates this wonderful universe over billions of years and for the most part sits back and watches, he get's to observe man discover the wonders of nature, he gets the thrill of watching His creation discover how the natural world works.

In other words, in one case he is a malevolent git who enjoys playing dirty tricks on His creation and in the other God is a creator who sets up the universe and then sits back to see how it all comes out. His creations are allowed to discover things for themselves and for the sake of the discovery itself. The quest for knowledge that has driven man since man became man.

If there is a God I know which version I respect more.

Get used to it, that is the norm with her.

 

[LOki]

There are several things I appreciate in your post, and agree with, but in the context of this thread, let me comment on the persecution of those one does not agree with.

That is exactly the case in the fields of science that deal with evolution. And, to some degree you can see it in this thread...present company excepted.

This scientist was subjected to, in Justice Thomas' words, a modern high-tech lynching.

Long, but worth reading:
I'll bold some parts in case you don't have the time.

a. “ Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue …included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.

b. …the first peer-reviewed article to appear in a technical biology journal laying out the evidential case for Intelligent Design. According to ID theory, certain features of living organisms …are better explained by an unspecified designing intelligence than by an undirected natural process like random mutation and natural selection.

c. Mr. Sternberg's … future as a researcher is in jeopardy …He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned…. "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."

d. Stephen Meyer, who holds a Cambridge University doctorate in the philosophy of biology. In the article, he cites biologists and paleontologists critical of certain aspects of Darwinism -- mainstream scientists at places like the University of Chicago, Yale, Cambridge and Oxford.

e. He points, for example, to the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago, when between 19 and 34 animal phyla (body plans) sprang into existence. He argues that, relying on only the Darwinian mechanism, there was not enough time for the necessary genetic "information" to be generated. ID, he believes, offers a better explanation.

f. …it was indeed subject to peer review, the gold standard of academic science. Not that such review saved Mr. Sternberg from infamy. Soon after the article appeared, Hans Sues -- the museum's No. 2 senior scientist -- denounced it to colleagues and then sent a widely forwarded e-mail calling it "unscientific garbage." the chairman of the Zoology Department, Jonathan Coddington, called Mr. Sternberg's supervisor. According to Mr. Sternberg's OSC complaint: "First, he asked whether Sternberg was a religious fundamentalist. She told him no. Coddington then asked if Sternberg was affiliated with or belonged to any religious organization....He then asked where Sternberg stood politically; ...he asked, 'Is he a right-winger? What is his political affiliation?'" The supervisor (who did not return my phone messages) recounted the conversation to Mr. Sternberg, who also quotes her observing: "There are Christians here, but they keep their heads down."

g. Worries about being perceived as "religious" spread at the museum. One curator, who generally confirmed the conversation when I spoke to him, told Mr. Sternberg about a gathering where he offered a Jewish prayer for a colleague about to retire. The curator fretted: "So now they're going to think that I'm a religious person, and that's not a good thing at the museum."

h. The Biological Society of Washington released a vaguely ecclesiastical statement regretting its association with the article. It did not address its arguments but denied its orthodoxy, citing a resolution of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that defined ID as, by its very nature, unscientific.

i. Critics of ID have long argued that the theory was unscientific because it had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Now that it has, they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific. They banish certain ideas from certain venues as if by holy writ, and brand heretics too. In any case, the heretic here is Mr. Meyer, a fellow at Seattle's Discovery Institute, not Mr. Sternberg, who isn't himself an advocate of Intelligent Design.

j. Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. "​

 

[LOki]

"Nothing in Koonin's paper refutes or denies that assertion."
Really?

Yes, really.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

I won’t use the offensive term that you enjoy throwing into almost every post…but now I see why it has such a personal meaning to you.

Either you fail to understand the import of Koonin's quote, or you you are prevaricating...which is it?

Nowhere ... NO-FUCKING-WHERE! ... does Koonin make the assertion "...that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,"

You superstitious intellectually dishonest retard. READ THE PAPER!

Ohhh,,,,you poor, sad, fool.

I can tell from the language that you know that you have lost the argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I hate to rub it in (actually, I don't):

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

(Emphasis, and giggle, mine)

Now, write soon, Lowest.
There's a dog biscuit in it for ya'!

So, you didn't read the paper did you?

Seriously, you incredible dipshit, READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

 

[LOki]

koshergrl is a member of the club that views prevarication as a substitute for actual substance. She believes he's saying something, she just doesn't know what. Nobody else does, either.
​

Still works perfectly! You see, koshergrl can't find a single prevarication that she can base her accusation upon. Sweet!

Prevarication provided. See above.

Translation:

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, really.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

Dumbass. READ THE PAPER!

It's short. Not as short as the abstract, which is what you're hanging this patently obvious misrepresentation upon.

Nowhere ... NO-FUCKING-WHERE! ... does Koonin make the assertion "...that there is no gradual series of changes leading to a new species,,,"

You superstitious intellectually dishonest retard. READ THE PAPER!

Ohhh,,,,you poor, sad, fool.

I can tell from the language that you know that you have lost the argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I hate to rub it in (actually, I don't):

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

(Emphasis, and giggle, mine)

Now, write soon, Lowest.
There's a dog biscuit in it for ya'!

So, you didn't read the paper did you?

Seriously, you incredible dipshit, READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

Ooooo.....

Doggie frustrated???

I note you didn't deny the validity of the quote....why is that?

More? OK....sit up:

“Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.” (Kemp, Tom, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583.)


Another dog biscuit?

Good boy!

 

[LOki]

Ohhh,,,,you poor, sad, fool.

I can tell from the language that you know that you have lost the argument.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.


I hate to rub it in (actually, I don't):

“Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” (Koonin, Eugene, “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” Biology Direct, 2007, 2:21.)

(Emphasis, and giggle, mine)

Now, write soon, Lowest.
There's a dog biscuit in it for ya'!

So, you didn't read the paper did you?

Seriously, you incredible dipshit, READ THE FUCKING PAPER.

Ooooo.....

Doggie frustrated???

I note you didn't deny the validity of the quote....why is that?

More? OK....sit up:

“Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species.” (Kemp, Tom, “The Reptiles that Became Mammals,” New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583.)


Another dog biscuit?

Good boy!

So. Now it appears you have read the paper, discovered that you were wrong, and rather than admit you were wrong you now wish to submit a different paper. Yes?

Of course.

And of course you're still in denial of ring-species, which fully refutes your dumbass assertion.

Eat your own dog biscuit, Potatohead.

 

[Dragon]

Ahem.

From the "fucking paper":

"I propose that most or all major evolutionary transitions that show the "explosive" pattern of emergence of new types of biological entities correspond to a boundary between two qualitatively distinct evolutionary phases. The first, inflationary phase is characterized by extremely rapid evolution driven by various processes of genetic information exchange . . . In the second phase, evolution dramatically slows down, the respective process of genetic information exchange tapers off, and multiple lineages of the new type of entities emerge, each of them evolving in a tree-like fashion from that point on."

(Emphasis added.) Loki is clearly right here. The paper DOES NOT argue against gradual evolution happening. What it does do, is posit that more rapid periods of evolution ALSO happen, and offers an explanation as to why.