What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Let's go through this again:

Barely any of the supposed scientists on the petition are actually credentialed scientists.

Most of those that are scientists are not related to evolution or biology.

The petition claim is misleading, and many of the scientists who signed it support evolution and do not endorse ID.

Even if every single name were a biologist and the petition's claim was "we reject evolution", it is still only 102 names against the millions of other biologists and life scientists who support evolution.

The title of the petition gives no mention whatsoever that these scientists in any way reject the claim that random mutations and natural selection generate complexity or diversity - it only states that they are skeptical of the claim, as any scientist worth their salt would be skeptical about any claim.

Now, stop parroting your ignorant nonsense and actually listen to people for once.

Why do you feel the need to shout?
Frustration? Or paranoia?
I might add to your problems with this:
Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke
You'd better listen good!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why do you feel the need to shout?

There's a difference between "shouting" and "using a larger font size", wilson.

I did so because Newhope completely and totally ignored every single one of the posts explaining why we dismiss the petition, and I wanted to make sure he couldn't ignore the arguments again.

Frustration? Or paranoia?

Neither. Necessity, because people like you and newhope will never understand anything unless we force-feed it to you and make you sit up and take notice.

I might add to your problems with this:
Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke
You'd better listen good!

Are you seriously dumb enough to be taken in by that?

 

[wilsoncole]

Once again...

That list represents less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists.
The list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields.
Fewer than 20% of the signers were biologists.
At least seven of the signatories received their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences", as DI puts it.

This hardly represents a "plethora".

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."
Dissent From Darwin Blog
Posted by Robert Crowther on August 11, 2008 7:29 AM | Permalink

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

There's a difference between "shouting" and "using a larger font size", wilson.

Since you're not writing to the visually challenged, in print, THAT'S SHOUTING!!!

I did so because Newhope completely and totally ignored every single one of the posts explaining why we dismiss the petition, and I wanted to make sure he couldn't ignore the arguments again.

So - "dismissing the petition" does not amount to "completely and totally ignoring every single post explaining why we" posted the petition? You did the very same thing and now you don't like the "equal and opposite reaction."
So - why don't you admit it - you resorted to shouting!

Neither. Necessity, because people like you and newhope will never understand anything unless we force-feed it to you and make you sit up and take notice.

Then why do you keep trying? It will NEVER work!

Are you seriously dumb enough to be taken in by that?

Believe what you like!
At least, I'm not dumb enough to be taken in by Darwinian evolution!
And that's a big plus!


(\__/)
( &#8216; .&#8216; )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Since you're not writing to the visually challenged, in print, THAT'S SHOUTING!!!

So, whenever anyone types anything in a larger font it's shouting? You ever heard of emphasis?

So - "dismissing the petition" does not amount to "completely and totally ignoring every single post explaining why we" posted the petition? You did the very same thing and now you don't like the "equal and opposite reaction."
So - why don't you admit it - you resorted to shouting!

What you talking about? We didn't ignore the petition, we explained in depth why the petition is misleading and dishonest, as well as irrelevant, and that is why we dismiss it.

Also, I didn't "shout". Stop being so dense.

Then why do you keep trying? It will NEVER work!

So you admit that you are too hopelessly ignorant and misinformed to ever change your view no matter how demonstrably wrong it may be?

Believe what you like!
At least, I'm not dumb enough to be taken in by Darwinian evolution!
And that's a big plus!

Well, it's comforting to know that your entire stance is based around not accepting something no matter how true it is, rather than actually accepting something because it's true.

 

[wilsoncole]

Not a single person here said that. Now it's you who's telling "big porkies".

We have already been through and picked apart that list and shown it to be dishonest, misleading and almost entirely signed by people who either have nothing to do with evolutionary theory or who don't even reject evolution theory in the first place.

At this point, you're just parroting.

Tell me - do you agree with this Declaration?
Would you sign it?

CFI Washington D.C. Home | Center for Inquiry


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell me - do you agree with this Declaration?
Would you sign it?

CFI Washington D.C. Home | Center for Inquiry

No.

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[wilsoncole]

So, whenever anyone types anything in a larger font it's shouting? You ever heard of emphasis?
Sure! I do it all the time!
However, I know that you emphasize a word or two, a phrase or two - but not an entire paragraph.
That's shouting!

What you talking about? We didn't ignore the petition, we explained in depth why the petition is misleading and dishonest, as well as irrelevant, and that is why we dismiss it.

You might have been able to make that claim IF you had discussed the petition, gone down the list, etc.
But you didn't. It was summarily dismissed by you. You ignored it - totally.

Also, I didn't "shout". Stop being so dense.

Didn't you emphasize the whole paragraph? Then you shouted!

So you admit that you are too hopelessly ignorant and misinformed to ever change your view no matter how demonstrably wrong it may be?

Listen, simple man - those words cut both ways! They are like a mirror. You should really be more careful.

Well, it's comforting to know that your entire stance is based around not accepting something no matter how true it is, rather than actually accepting something because it's true.

To my statement above - DITTO!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

No.

What does that have to do with anything?

Don't be such a coward!
It is part of an illustration.
Just play along - you might find it interesting.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[fantome profane]

um…excuse me. I was looking for the thread about the fossil record. I think it use to be around here somewhere.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sure! I do it all the time!
However, I know that you emphasize a word or two, a phrase or two - but not an entire paragraph.
That's shouting!

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

You might have been able to make that claim IF you had discussed the petition, gone down the list, etc.
But you didn't. It was summarily dismissed by you. You ignored it - totally.

Wilson, you're either illiterate or just plain lying through your teeth. The last two pages of this thread are filled with people explaining how and why we have dismissed the petition - go and look for yourself.

Didn't you emphasize the whole paragraph? Then you shouted!

According to your own imaginary standard of grammar, maybe. In the real world, shouting is spoken unless clearly used to present dialogue - what's more, shouting is often accompanied by exclamation marks, not periods.

Now, stop distracting from the issue. I will not respond to another one of these incredibly stupid claims about shouting from you.

Listen, simple man - those words cut both ways! They are like a mirror. You should really be more careful.

You're the one who said you'd never change your mind no matter how many facts we spoon feed you. That's a pretty strong indication that facts aren't you concern.

To my statement above - DITTO!

Again, you're the one who said it, not me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't be such a coward!
It is part of an illustration.
Just play along - you might find it interesting.

I answered your question already. How much more "playing along" is required?

 

[Autodidact]

"Henry F. Schaefer III or ("He is the author of more than 1150 scientific publications "(see 1 , 2 and 3 ) , including recent studies on DNA and RNA (eg 4 ) . A list of 2007 out in 1155 peer-reviewed publications in detail on ). And of course, a highly qualified Quantum Chemist as Schaefer also fully applicable to the creation of life to say something, even if the research focus is not to be. And on this website scientists is a good number of other critical darwin and ID to find peer-reviewed publication lists can prove long."
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

Here's what he isn't: A Biologist. Therefore he is no more qualified to speak on evolution than a plumber.

 

[Autodidact]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Please - do not denigrate the Discovery Institute to me.
I have nothing to do with them.
They simply published a list of highly educated evolution dissenters. A very long list.
That is all I wanted from them.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

Actually, no.
Read their "dissent" very carefully. It says the evidence should be evaluated skeptically. Heck, Dawkins would agree with that. That's not the same thing as saying it's wrong.

Next, there are a lot of people on their list who are not scientists, such as veterinarians and chiropractors.

And of the scientists, very few Biologists. Approximately 99% of Biologists accept the theory. Of course, it's possible that the 1% are right, and the 99% are wrong, but at a minimum, their numbers are not an argument in their favor.

And, of that 1%, they do not agree among themselves as to what is correct.

So basically there is a single, foundational, consensus theory in Biology: Evolution.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Streaming Media - Dissenting Scientist - Dr. Ralph Seelke
You'd better listen good!

I listened and listened good as well as went online to find additional information and could hear nothing or find anything where he doesn't believe that evolution ever happened or happens. The interviewer asked him about "macro-evolution". Well, let's get something straight...creationist were the ones coming out of the woodwork coining this term and boasting how "macro-evolution" doesn't happened and has never been observed. For the most part I'd say they were right because biologist understand that micro-evolution is what they're concerned about and that particular topic is not debatable because it's a fact that micro-evolution happens. I contend it's micro that leads to macro (if there is such a thing as macro)....Then I remembered these guys....

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island


Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

 

[Dirty Penguin]

um…excuse me. I was looking for the thread about the fossil record. I think it use to be around here somewhere.

Yea, this thread jump the rail long ago.....I think we got glimpse as to what the fossil record says but creationist and ID proponent were more intrigued with the evolution topic..... maybe we'll get back on track before it gets too boring and circular around here....

 

[wilsoncole]

dont bring scripture into this, they are holding me back at this moment and ill tear your little myth into shreds based on its own words and lack of historicity.

You can try. But it won't be easy.

You'll rush out like this:

and go running back like this:

with your nose and teeth beaten back into your skull.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can try. But it won't be easy.

You'll rush out like this:

and go running back like this:

with your nose and teeth beaten back into your skull.

Because a man who makes his arguments through pictures of adorable pets is definitely not a man to be trifled with.

 

[wilsoncole]

According to your own imaginary standard of grammar, maybe. In the real world, shouting is spoken unless clearly used to present dialogue - what's more, shouting is often accompanied by exclamation marks, not periods.

Now, stop distracting from the issue. I will not respond to another one of these incredibly stupid claims about shouting from you.

YOU SHOUTED.
See what I mean?

You're the one who said you'd never change your mind no matter how many facts we spoon feed you. That's a pretty strong indication that facts aren't you concern.

Now you're resorting to lying.
Show me where I said that.

Again, you're the one who said it, not me.

Lying again.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
&#12288;
Wilson

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you said that if I showed you a peer-reviewed scientific article describing the emergence of a new species, you would not believe it. For that reason, I have not bothered to show them to you. What would be the point?

So I gather your position is that new species never come into existence? Is that right?