What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Show me what I plagiarized.
What is the Reply # of the supposedly plagiarized post?

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

This post of yours:

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998).......... After summarizing Kettlewell’s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn’t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell’s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."

appears to have been stolen from here.

You have stolen from Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, lied, and then deleted your post to cover it up.

So now I ask, in addition to plagiarizing, why do creationists lie so much? Don't they know it damages their credibility and their cause?

[Thanks, David, I was wondering why I couldn't find it in the thread. Good work.]

 

[Autodidact]

btw, many forums do not allow editing after a narrow window of time, precisely to prevent dishonest creationist tactics like this.

 

[wilsoncole]

This post of yours:

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998).......... After summarizing Kettlewell&#8217;s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn&#8217;t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell&#8217;s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."

appears to have been stolen from here.

You have stolen from Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, lied, and then deleted your post to cover it up.

So now I ask, in addition to plagiarizing, why do creationists lie so much? Don't they know it damages their credibility and their cause?

[Thanks, David, I was wondering why I couldn't find it in the thread. Good work.]

Something funny is going on here:
This website (the UK website in Reply # 1960) shows that my post gave credit to the writer W.E. Lonnig:
What does the fossil record say? - Page 196 - Religious Education Forum

The failure of mutations as an agent of advancement is well documented.

Fantastic claims lacking proof puts YOU in a dilemma.

What is the best case of natural selection that has been proposed so far?
Darwin's finches? E-coli and a change of diet? Peppered moth? Which? Are there others? These just don't cut it.
Take a good look at the peppered moth and "industrial melanism.":

" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, we have to point to the most surprising fact that the case has recently been found wanting (Sargent et al., 1998; Majerus, 1998; Coyne, 1998).......... After summarizing Kettlewell&#8217;s presentation of the Biston betularia instance, Coyne (1998) states the main points of the critical recent observations as follows:

(a) The peppered moth normally doesn&#8217;t rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell had directly placed them for documentation);

(b) The moth usually choose their resting places during the night, not during the day (the latter being implied in the usual evolutionary textbook illustrations);

(c) The return of the variegated form of the peppered moth occurred independently of the lichens "that supposedly played such an important role" (Coyne); and

(d) Kettlewell&#8217;s behavioral experiments have not been replicated in later investigations. Additionally, there are important points to be added from the original papers, as

(e) differences of vision between man and birds and

(f) the pollution-independent decrease of melanic morphs."


For another renowned textbook-example of natural selection, which was pointed out recently to consist more of a metaphysical explanation than a scientifically valid case, see Gould for the origin of the neck of the giraffe (Gould, 1996). Moreover, as for the inherent limitations of one of the prime examples for natural selection, to wit the sickle cell allele and malaria resistance, see ReMine (1993). Moreover, one may ask whether Mayr&#8216;s first four instances for natural selection mentioned above ("insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia") are really cases of natural selection or more "man-made" or "man-caused" (not natural) selection.

It may be asked: How is it possible that cases of insufficient or even false evidence for natural selection can be bolstered and presented in such a way that it appears to be so convincing and entirely compelling that even the best minds of the world can be grossly misled - even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
NATURAL SELECTION



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

Wilson

Do you see the "natural selection" in red? It was there in the original post.
Where&#8217;s the plagiarism?
I do not know how or why it was removed or by whom. I admit to making the post with due accreditation. As a lawyer, you should know that you got no case.

Tell me - the posts are all numbered; How does one delete a post without replacing it with another? What was the Post # and what did I replace it with?....
Why would I delete a post if I wanted the information read by people like you? I know the information knocks your mutations claims to smithereens. Would it not have been easier to alter it? Does my "stolen" post have any notice of editing at the tailend of it? If it does, what is the time element between the posting and the editing? At what time did David M copy it?
If you can do these things, we will see who is lying.
Lying also brings reproach on the name of our God. He is so firm against it that the Bible says this about it:
&#8220;Yet if by reason of my lie the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner?&#8221; (Romans 3:7)
This means that if I lie, but it brings glory to God, my punishment is the same as the wicked person because lying is an act of wickedness.
BTW - W.E. Lonnig, like myself, is a JW and stealing and lying are disfellowshipping offenses.
You accuse me of deleting a post. Can you prove that?
If you can't then it amounts to slander.

I can see that I am dealing with some very nasty people!

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

Wilson

PS: I am not computer-savvy enough to know about Google cache, deleting and all that stuff.

 

[wilsoncole]

btw, many forums do not allow editing after a narrow window of time, precisely to prevent dishonest creationist tactics like this.

So - since each post is numbered, how would I go about altering the numbering system?
And why would I want to delete the post when I want you to read the information?
(Well, you read it anyway.)
Should I repeat it?

Why don't you try responding to it instead of trying to smear me?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

The post I quoted above, which has now been deleted to remove the evidence of the plagiarised words. The post that originally followed Almill's post with the picture of the dusty car.

However It is still available via Google cache.

What does the fossil record say? - Page 196 - Religious Education Forum

So rather than admit to wrongdoing Wilson is reduced to deleting posts and pretending they never existed? That is very indicative of how a persons posts can be judged.

Learn a lesson in honesty from this Wilson (and also in the power of other people's ability to use google).

Here is what you wrote without indicating that you were quoting someone else.


And here is what Loennig wrote here NATURAL SELECTION
Underlined are the words that you excluded when you copied and pasted, apart from those we have identical words in the same order without attributing them to their author. Plagiarism.

Or of cache pages.

So, how did I get around the numbering system?
Learn a lesson from this, English:
Check your own link (the UK website in Reply # 1960) and you will see that my post gave credit to Lonnig.

Trying to ruin people's character is a very nasty vice.



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

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Plagiarism is a breach of forum rules.

NATURAL SELECTION

Of course Loennig is wrong but I'll wait until you admit your plagiarism before posting the evidence for it.

Here is some more information that batters you mutations claims:
"The main problem regarding natural selection and limited geographical distribution of species has aptly been summarized by the evolutionary biologist Futuyma (1998, p. 535):

"[R]ange limits pose an evolutionary problem that has not been solved. A species has adapted to the temperature, salt levels, or other conditions that prevail just short of the edge of its range. Why, then, can it not become adapted to the slightly more stressful conditions that prevail just beyond its present border, and extend its range slightly?

And if it did so, why could it not then become adapted to still more demanding conditions, and so expand its geographic range (or its altitudinal or habit distribution) indefinitely over the course of time? These questions pose starkly the problem of what limits the extent of adaptive evolution, and we do not know the answers. We will discuss several hypotheses, citing little evidence because little exists (Hoffmann and Blows, 1994; Bradshaw, 1991)."

Part of the answer is the inherent limit of variation specified by the law of recurrent variation, i.e. the intrinsic restriction of the action of chance mutations to generate functionally new genetic material, either for one new gene or many of them indispensable for the origin of irreducibly complex structures. The absence of such "positive mutations" results in limits for natural selection."


NATURAL SELECTION

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

The lamprey - a living fossil!

They fit perfectly in line with the ToE. What about them that concerns you in light of evolution? See, they are perfectly suited to their environment. They reproduce as their supposed to. They have an abundance of food. Their particular environment doesn't appear to have changed to the point of speeding up their evolution.

Agnatha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They rely on a row of sharp teeth to shred their host. Fluids preventing clotting are injected into the host,causing the host to yield more blood. Hagfish are decomposers, eating mostly dead animals. They also use a sharp set of teeth to break down the animal. Agnathan feeding habits have limited their ability to advance evolutionarily. The fact that all Agnathan teeth are not able to move up and down limit their possible food types

I see you fell for that old line.
It is not due to non-changing environment.
"Living fossils have been totally unexpected for a theory according to which everything is in a state of permanent flux and evolution (Lönnig, 1999b).

In the wording of Eldredge (1989, p. 108),
"Living fossils are something of an embarrassment to the expectation that evolutionary change is inevitable as time goes by."

Darwin admitted,
"When I see that species even in a state of nature do vary little and seeing how much they vary when domesticated, I look with astonishment at a species which has existed since one of the earlier Tertiary periods. ...This fixity of character is marvellous" (Darwin, 1852, quoted in Ospovat, 1995, p. 201).

The general explanation by neo-Darwinians is that certain species are fixed because they are adapted to non-changing environments.
This explanation is doubtful for the following reasons:
(a) There are hardly any constant environments over longer geologic time periods;
(b) Most living fossils are found in permanently changing environments with high competition factors (Storch & Welsch, 1989); and
(c) According to the modern synthesis, even in constant environments the endless generation of new advantageous mutations plus selection pressures within the species should lead to the permanent substitution of primitive structures and species by more advanced ones.

So, in spite of billions of mutations in the long history of living fossils and in defiance of natural selection during millions of years, species did not diverge (see definition of natural selection at the beginning of the article). Therefore, the rich array of living fossils constitutes another serious problem for the neo-Darwinian school."
http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html
So, your "explanation" falls far short of fact.
You cannot bend every natural occurrence to suit evolutionary theory.



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

Wilson

 

[David M]

So, how did I get around the numbering system?

You deleted the post (Edit then Delete). In which case it no longer exists so has no number. Post numbering is relative and not absolute.

Learn a lesson from this, English:
Check your own link (the UK website in Reply # 1960) and you will see that my post gave credit to Lonnig.

No you didn't. You posted a big chunk of text without using the quote function and put a url at the bottom. There was no indication that the url did not just apply to the final paragraph just as there was no indication that the section on the peppered moth had a different author.

Trying to ruin people's character is a very nasty vice.

The way your character is perceived is entirely your own fault.

If you want to cite the work of others do it properly and clearly.

 

[Krok]

And now that you have become a man, you should put away the childish things. (1 Corinthians 13:1-8)

That’s why I made a closer study of the water cycle. Nothing about it in your Bible. Your Bible only describes what little children can figure out all by themselves.

Is this what you figured out - all by your lil' ol' self?

Hydrologic cycle
Hydrologic System

Your Bible didn’t figure this out. Science did it later. When I was a little child I figured out exactly what your Bible describes – your Bible didn’t do anything special.

Trees, filtration and storage had nothing to do with it - right?

Ain't that simple - is it?
Wilson

Your Bible didn’t figure out anything about trees, filtration and storage at all – your Bible only figured out what any small child can figure out. Nothing special about it. Or are you trying to mislead people about what the Bible says, again?

Job 26:8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Job 36:27-28 He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Either way, the source you plagiarized from is either lying or incompetent. Kettlewell's original research was confirmed by Majerus.

Peppered moths do rest on tree trunks, they are differentially preyed upon depending on color, and they remain a classic example of natural selection in the wild.

Icon of Obfuscation

Correct.....:yes:

Case in point......

[youtube]LyRA807djLc[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyRA807djLc

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That’s why I made a closer study of the water cycle. Nothing about it in your Bible. Your Bible only describes what little children can figure out all by themselves.

Your Bible didn’t figure this out. Science did it later. When I was a little child I figured out exactly what your Bible describes – your Bible didn’t do anything special.

Your Bible didn’t figure out anything about trees, filtration and storage at all – your Bible only figured out what any small child can figure out. Nothing special about it. Or are you trying to mislead people about what the Bible says, again?

Job 26:8 He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.
Job 36:27-28 He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind.
Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

Thanks. This is what I was pointing out. This was something understood by many cultures before, during and after the text of the bible. Basically the writer took what was observable and attributed to his god. He explains a phenomenon of the natural world that was observable. Sumerians, Egyptians, Chinese as well as Hindus had already possessed such knowledge.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How about that fossil I posted. Where does it fit if man was created fully formed?

First, you have to get past the problems with mutations. They do not support the claims that they improve any organisms.

But what does this have to do with the fossil picture I posted?

Where does this fit in with your assertion of creation?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The lamprey - a living fossil!

I see you fell for that old line.
It is not due to non-changing environment.

Fell for what? Had you actually taken the time to truly research Lampreys you'd realize they would not be the best argument for you. First off they have a highly adaptive immune system. From fresh water to sea water there is no shortage of a food source for them so they are perfectly suited for their environment. There is no shortage of fish so they are able to feed, they mate fine and have been doing so for more than 360 mil years, and their immune system is remarkable....so very little evolution will occur. What the researchers have noticed is that they've gotten longer over time.

Scientists Find Lamprey A 'Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn't Evolved Much
"This fossil changes how we look at lampreys today," said Coates, associate professor of organismal biology and anatomy. "They're very ancient, very primitive animals, yet with highly specialized feeding habits."


It reveals that the anatomical evolution of lampreys is more conservative than scientists thought, Coates added. Although they've gotten slightly longer, they specialized early and successfully and thus appeared to have stayed much the same for the past 360 million years.

So, I basically said the same thing the researchers said. Mind you, this is the same researcher you quoted in your link.


Here's a bit more on Lampreys/Hag-fish

Lamprey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Sea lampreys have become a major plague in the North American Great Lakes after artificial canals allowed their entry during the early 20th century. They are considered an invasive species, have no natural enemies in the lakes and prey on many species of commercial value, such as lake trout."

Again, they are perfectly suited to their environment. If a species has no enemy, and abundance of food and can successfully reproduce, producing viable offspring then they have the ability to survive for a long, long time due to its adaptive immune system and if these things remain a constant then their evolution will be slow.

 

[Autodidact]

Something funny is going on here:

You can say that again.

Where’s the plagiarism?

Read your next sentence:

I admit to making the post with due accreditation

That's the definition of plagiarism.

. As a lawyer, you should know that you got no case.

I'll allow the jury to draw their own conclusion.
“Yet if by reason of my lie the truth of God has been made more prominent to his glory, why am I also yet being judged as a sinner?” (Romans 3:7)[/quote] Hmmm...that's not what I get.

This means that if I lie, but it brings glory to God, my punishment is the same as the wicked person because lying is an act of wickedness.
BTW - W.E. Lonnig, like myself, is a JW and stealing and lying are disfellowshipping offenses.

You might want to report yourself then.

You accuse me of deleting a post. Can you prove that?

It's been proven in this thread.

If you can't then it amounts to slander.

Please, don't make your situation worse. Remember, the coverup is always worse than the crime.

I can see that I am dealing with some very nasty people!

If by "nasty" you mean "honest."

PS: I am not computer-savvy enough to know about Google cache, deleting and all that stuff.

Yes, we can see that. That's why you didn't realize you'd be caught.

 

[Jose Fly]

So Wilsoncole is just like the other creationists...when his copied information is shown to be incorrect, he simply ignores the rebuttal and copies something new into the thread.

How about that?

 

[outhouse]

So Wilsoncole is just like the other creationists...when his copied information is shown to be incorrect, he simply ignores the rebuttal and copies something new into the thread.

How about that?

thats because you have to know what your talking about.

its obvious he's ignorant to the topic at hand

 

[Jose Fly]

thats because you have to know what your talking about.

its obvious he's ignorant to the topic at hand

Sure, but here's what's so fascinating about creationists...

We're all ignorant in far more subjects than not, and I think most of us are aware of that. So if I went into an internet group of diesel mechanics, I would understand and recognize my own ignorance of diesel engines. Sure, I know a few things about automotive repair, but certainly not enough to start arguing and disagreeing with those who know the subject quite well.

But creationists seem to completely lack that sort of self-awareness and humility (and yes, I am aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect). They just parade out one childishly goofy argument after another, apparently totally oblivious to the fact that the rest of us sit here and take turns shooting them down in a trivially easy manner.

I've been in situations where I was misled by a source, and upon presenting them to actual experts I quickly realized I was misled. My response was something like, "Oh...ok. So help me out...what exactly is going on" and I took the time to understand the subject as best I could.

But not creationists. Instead, their collective instinct seems to be to go back to the misleading source even more and attack the people who are trying to explain the situation.

It's fascinating to see that psychology in action and it baffles me every time. I honestly have a hard time believing that so many people are that delusional and lacking in self-awareness.

 

[painted wolf]

Sure, but here's what's so fascinating about creationists...

We're all ignorant in far more subjects than not, and I think most of us are aware of that. So if I went into an internet group of diesel mechanics, I would understand and recognize my own ignorance of diesel engines. Sure, I know a few things about automotive repair, but certainly not enough to start arguing and disagreeing with those who know the subject quite well.

But creationists seem to completely lack that sort of self-awareness and humility (and yes, I am aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect). They just parade out one childishly goofy argument after another, apparently totally oblivious to the fact that the rest of us sit here and take turns shooting them down in a trivially easy manner.

I've been in situations where I was misled by a source, and upon presenting them to actual experts I quickly realized I was misled. My response was something like, "Oh...ok. So help me out...what exactly is going on" and I took the time to understand the subject as best I could.

But not creationists. Instead, their collective instinct seems to be to go back to the misleading source even more and attack the people who are trying to explain the situation.

It's fascinating to see that psychology in action and it baffles me every time. I honestly have a hard time believing that so many people are that delusional and lacking in self-awareness.

Sadly, it's not just creationists that do this...

They just do it with particular flair.

wa:do

 

[wilsoncole]

that's another thing creationists do a lot. Why do you think that is?

Amil posted at 1:52 am Reply # 1952
Post in question:
I posted it at 7:52 am; should have been numbered 1953 and last edited at 7:55 am.
There was no editing after that!
My next post is at 9.04 am and numbered 1953 but it should have been numbered 1954.
I did not delete any post and I do not understand how that happened.
David M&#8217;s post at 2:14 pm and numbered 1954
Question now is, WHEN was my post removed? It must have been between 7:55 am and 2:14 pm.
David M did not quote directly from my post. He got the information from Googling it. How did he know what to Google?
Let&#8217;s go by the posted times:
If my post was removed before 2:14 pm, how did David M know about it, enough to copy an entire sentence - this sentence:" Looking at the famous case of industrial melanism more than 20 years later, (with the opening quotation marks that indicated it was a quote), and then Google it?
At the end of the quote, the closing quotation mark appears, followed by: NATURAL SELECTION: thus&#8230;
even to the point of modifying a published evaluation on this topic?"
I submitted this: (http://www.weloennig.de/Natural Selection.html) but it appeared like this:
NATURAL SELECTION
This is getting to look more and more like David M&#8217;s doing.
Nevertheless the charge is false. There was no plagiarism.

Accusations is a favorite tactic of unbelievers and it started with the Devil.
He accused his own creator of holding out on Adam and Eve and that accusation resulted in our present dying condition.
He further accused faithful Job of serving God for selfish reasons.
He then went on to accuse God&#8217;s servants while in heaven, just before he was tossed out:
&#8220;So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: &#8220;Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God!&#8221; (Revelation 12:9-10)

So, go ahead - I expect further accusations because I know where it is coming from.

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

Wilson

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, go ahead - I expect further accusations because I know where it is coming from.

Uhhh...wherditgo?