Karma reasons for concrete message

Message

ParkingPlaces



    Posts: 7739
  • Darwins +1176/-6

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a lifeform that exhibits characteristics of two distinct taxonomic groups. A transitional fossil is the fossil of an organism near the branching point where major individual lineages (clades) diverge. It will have characteristics typical of organisms on both sides of the split, but because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close it is to the actual point of divergence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law which is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Natural law is contrasted with the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus serves as a standard by which to critique said positive law.[2] According to natural law theory, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale)[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[135] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[136] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved...In this sense, microevolution and macroevolution might involve selection at different levels – with microevolution acting on genes and organisms, versus macroevolutionary processes such as species selection acting on entire species and affecting their rates of speciation and extinction.[138][139][140]
 
A common misconception is that evolution has goals or long-term plans; realistically however, evolution has no long-term goal and does not necessarily produce greater complexity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

"microevolution and macro evolution might invlove selection at different levels". No duh. Yet you see in the explanation the claim that all is needed in time. Huh? Looks like a case of someone covering their butt.

All fossils are transitional fossils? (if you assume evolution to be true) All the other sciences point to evolution? (only if you assume evolution to be true)
What happens to Scientist who do not toe the party line claiming "evolution is true". They are thrown out and mocked. Why, because like I claimed earlier, evidence that doesn't support evolution is discarded. You only keep the parts that agree with you.

Filling in the gaps is speculation. Yet you do it and call it science. You look at the evidence and speculate what should have happened to fill in the gaps. I claim there were no gaps. God created each species. There is no need for stop gaps.

I quote Emile Zuckerkandl "The general foundations for the evolution of 'higher' from 'lower' organisms seems so far to have largely eluded analysis". eluded analysis.  How can you make a theory out of something you can't even analyze?

I quote Japanese mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura "The natural theory asserts that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level, as revealed by comparative studies of proteins and DNA sequences, not by Darwinian selection but by random drift of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations."
Let me explain the importance of this. If what this scientist claims is true, then Darwinism is false. Do you explore the possibility of this? No he is written off. (didn't toe the line)

What a lie. and you all believe it. But I guess like you argued earlier, I am only a christian because I was born in North America. Therefore you must be evolutionists because you went to school in North America?

I must warn you rhocam, your copy and paste keys are going to fall off pretty soon.

I've no idea why you stuck in that thing about natural laws. A bonus I guess.

You quote Emile Zuckerkandl (an atheist by the way), founder of the Journal of Molecular Evolution, as a supporter of "god did it?" He was a colleague of Linus Pauling, who was married to my cousin Ava, and both Emile and Linus were atheists through and through. They may have disagreed a bit with Darwinian evolution in the details, but both were supporters of the theory of evolution. I have no idea why the good Mr. Zuckerkankl appealed to you.

Then you quote Motoo Kimura, who proposed another way for evolution to occur. Note that he didn't propose that evolution didn't occur. (I've no idea what his religious stance was, but educated Japanese folks tend not to be christian, for obvious reasons.) He thought that evolution occurred via a different process than others were saying. His view is apparently pretty much accepted today. What he said was that the changes that occurred were neutral, and had nothing to do with the survival of the fittest. That doesn't mean, as much as you want it to, that evolution didn't occur. It just means that you misunderstand the wrong version. At least you know that now. That's progress.

Oh, and you said Mr. Kimura didn't toe the line, and he was written off. I know you don't like others using wikipedia, because it lessens the validity of your vapid research, but accodrding to that august web site:

Quote
"Though difficult to test against alternative selection-centered hypotheses, the neutral theory has become part of modern approaches to molecular evolution.

In 1992, Kimura received the Darwin Medal from the Royal Society, and the following year he was made a Foreign Member of the Royal Society. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motoo_Kimura)

Note that he was involved in molecular evolution. Which hasn't got damned thing to do with fossils. I know that confuses you, but it is possible. Before you cut and paste a wiseass quote from Jeffy out of a Family Circus comic, think about accepting that there are other sources of knowledge for you to attack, so should be taking notes instead of  googling "what in the f**k am I going to say now".

Note that I mentioned earlier that Darwin is credited with the original idea, but variations on his idea have arisen since. We supporters of evolution don't put as much pressure on Darwin to be right as you do. We have hundreds of thousands of pieces of information he did not have available when he wrote his work. So we know far more than he did. He had the right idea. The details were a bit off. It looks like Punctuated Equilibrium describes the rate of change far better than the slow smooth changes envisioned by Darwin. In case that whooshed over your head, I'll say it this way.

[rant]

DARWINISM ISN'T FALSE IF WE FIND OUT NEW THINGS THAT STILL SUPPORT EVOLUTION. DARWINISM AND EVOLUTION AS WE KNOW IT TODAY ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME FRICKIN' EXACT THING. WHAT DARWIN SAID IN 1859 CANNOT POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN TOTALLY CORRECT, BECAUSE HE HAD NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION NEEDED TO BE AS CORRECT AS WE CAN BE TODAY. YOU FUNDY'S KEEP HARPING ON THE POOR GUY, INSISTING HE HAD A DEATHBED CONVERSION AND SEEMING TO THINK THAT HE IS THE ONLY GOD DAMNED SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE ABOUT EVOLUTION. BAD NEWS. WE'VE PROGRESSED,  BUT YOU GUYS HAVEN'T. WE CAN ONLY TAKE CREDIT FOR THE FORMER.

[/rant]

(Note to mods: Can we make that a feature?)

So you say "What a lie. and you all believe it." Apparently a lie, to you, is any combiantion of words used in such as way as to challenge your simplified and useless version of the universe and that makes you uncomforable. The concocting of such sentences has to be stopped even if you have to quote people out of context that don't agree with you in any way, shape or form.

Any response to my long post above where I told about the many other scientific findings that support evolution? The stuff that you think assumes evolution to be true before it is even discovered/researched, etc. The giraffes neck thingy. Any comments?

Note: Feel free to misquote me in your next effort to diss evolution. It'll be so much easier for me. I won't have to do your research for you because I'll already know the source. I would really appreciate it.

(No fair Azdgari! You finished before me. I hope you rot in a casket after you die! And you too jaimehiers. I called dibs on him first!  ;D)

Edit: rewrote a couple of things and fixed some typos. Couldn't do a damned thing about the color.
Edit: Found more things to fix. I shouldn't write when it's this late. But mainly because it bothers others here at the home. In the morning they'll be running over me with their wheelchairs.
Changed Change Reason Date
jaimehlers You can have his dibs, I'm only after his arguments. February 15, 2012, 01:55:27 AM