4 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-lime"explain any" of what "in my own words"?
[b]Tell us, how is such scientific evidence NOT scientific support for punctuated equilibrium?
Tell us, how is it you are unable to explain ANY of this in your own words?[/b]
The evidence?
Punctuated equilibrium?
I am able to explain both "in my own words". But why when you can just read it for yourself from the links? Are you implying you need me to dumb in down for you because you are unable to understand it? Or what, exactly?
The links I provided show punctuated equilibrium has much scientific support (proof, in fact) thus shows your assertion to the contrary to be very clearly false.
3 edits
Originally posted by @humyI'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying, as well as having the good sense to avoid coming across like an oxymoronic bombastic name calling hair-trigger reactionary booger eating... booger eater.
"explain any" of what "in my own words"?
The evidence?
Punctuated equilibrium?
I am able to explain both "in my own words". But why when you can just read it for yourself from the links? Are you implying you need me to dumb in down for you because you are unable to understand it? Or what, exactly?
The links I provided show punctuated equilibrium has much ...[text shortened]... fic support (proof, in fact) thus shows your assertion to the contrary to be very clearly false.
========================================================================
Starting from the premise of evolution you will be able to 'see' gaps in the fossil record. Following this comes a theory for explaining why the perceived gaps only appear to be gaps. The evidence for supporting this theory are a handful of bones and fossils assigned to the percieved gaps. If asked about the gaps you need only point to a handful of bones, the theory and the evidence for that theory... which (coincidentally) just happens to be those very same gaps which only appear to be gaps if you begin with the evolutionary premise allowing you to 'see' the gaps that aren't actually there...
The only thing holding all of this together is the opening premise.
For any of this to actually work, the premise must also serve as both the conclusion and as evidence of itself.
3 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIf you had a hard time following all that, no sweat. Here's a simpler example:
I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying, as well as having the good sense to avoid coming across like an oxymoronic bombastic name calling hair-trigger reactionary booger eating... booger eater.
========================================================================
Starting from the premise ...[text shortened]... to actually work, the premise must also serve as both the conclusion and as evidence of itself.
Mr A wakes up in the morning and discovers 7 holes in his backyard, evenly spaced apart and roughly the same width and depth. So he calls his next door neighbor (B) over and accuses him of digging the holes. B challenges A's theory and demands to know what evidence he has to support the charge.
1st piece of evdence: B points to the holes, and proclaims this is indisputable (direct) evidence of there being holes in his backyard.
2nd piece of evidence: B is his next door neighbor. This is circumstantial evidence supported by the 1st piece of indisputable evidence.
3rd piece of evidence: A knows that B owns a shovel, so A demands to examine B's shovel to see if there is any evidence of fresh dirt on the blade.
Perry Mason shows up out of nowhere, and reminds A that A had borrowed B's shovel a few years ago and never returned it. The three walk over to A's toolhouse and find the shovel with fresh dirt on the blade.
Case closed.
Della and Paul join Perry later on that same day, and discuss the case over porterhouse steaks and drinks.
1 edit
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt's a very long page, so I scanned through it (twice) looking for any reference to punctuated equibrium. If it's there I didn't find it. But it's very possible I missed seeing it, because I was mostly scanning quickly through the page. I'll try again later.
Isn't this scientific support for punctuated equilibrium? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
If not, why not?
By the way, there's no 's' in http:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Originally posted by @lemon-limeCorrection:
If you had a hard time following all that, no sweat. Here's a simpler example:
Mr A wakes up in the morning and discovers 7 holes in his backyard, evenly spaced apart and roughly the same width and depth. So he calls his next door neighbor (B) over and accuses him of digging the holes. B challenges A's theory and demands to know what evidence he has t ...[text shortened]... Paul join Perry later on that same day, and discuss the case over porterhouse steaks and drinks.
1st piece of evdence: B points to the holes...
A points to the holes, not B.
thank you for your indulgence
Originally posted by @lemon-limeOh drat! Another correction...
If you had a hard time following all that, no sweat. Here's a simpler example:
Mr A wakes up in the morning and discovers 7 holes in his backyard, evenly spaced apart and roughly the same width and depth. So he calls his next door neighbor (B) over and accuses him of digging the holes. B challenges A's theory and demands to know what evidence he has t ...[text shortened]... Paul join Perry later on that same day, and discuss the case over porterhouse steaks and drinks.
"2nd piece of evidence: B is his next door neighbor. This is circumstantial evidence" (period)*
* (does not support and is not supported by the 1st piece of indisputable evidence)
2 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limeOkay, I think I may have found what could be interpreted as rapid evolutionary change. But it appears to be speculative and based on the belief that most of the (presumed missing) evidence was not preserved.
It's a very long page, so I scanned through it (twice) looking for any reference to punctuated equibrium. If it's there I didn't find it. But it's very possible I missed seeing it, because I was mostly scanning quickly through the page. I'll try again later.
By the way, there's no 's' in http:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
The belief that it's nearly impossible for soft bodied organisms from that era to be preserved flys in the face of all the fossilized soft bodied organisms that have already been found, and continue being found. This is just one of the reasons I don't buy into the presumption that rapid evolutionary development necessarily hides (or is able to hide) evidence of itself.
2 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying,
In other words, you are unwilling to read any link containing any evidence that shows your opinions and assertions or religious beliefs to be totally wrong.
Starting from the premise of evolution you will be able to 'see' gaps in the fossil record.
No, the core of evolution theory says nothing of what we would see in the fossil record because evolution isn't a theory of the fossil record.
The evidence for supporting this theory are a handful of bones and fossils assigned to the percieved gaps.
just one missing link found would be proof of evolution. We have hundreds (maybe more) observed missing links including in the fossil record and those that are alive today. This evidence alone is proof of evolution but there is more evidence, such as DNA evidence etc.
The reset of your posts are straw man and irrelevances.
4 edits
Originally posted by @lemon-limewhat is the sense of doing that?
I scanned through it (twice) looking for any reference to punctuated equilibrium.
He posted;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Notice what this link is of?
It is of the Cambrian explosion, which couldn't happen without punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion is evidence of punctuated equilibrium by definition; SURELY you don't need to see the words "punctuated equilibrium" in there to comprehend that, right? Just think what "punctuated equilibrium" means and then what "Cambrian explosion" means and then think how those two things relate.
Originally posted by @humyjust one missing link found would be proof of evolution.I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying,
In other words, you are unwilling to read any link containing any evidence that shows your opinions and assertions or religious beliefs to be totally wrong.
[quote] Starting from the premise of evolution you will be able to 'see' gaps in ...[text shortened]... rd as and those that are alive today.
The reset of your posts are straw man and irrelevances.
Yeah, like when the skull of a missing link to man was heralded, until someone identified it as the skull of a femail gorilla. Then a few years later the skull of a missing link to man was found and reported... with the same result. Being fooled the first time was bad enough, but twice within the same decade is... is what, unbelievable?
But it did happen, so I have no other choice than to believe it.
Okay, your turn. But before you answer let me guess... the default response is to deny that ever happened. Am I right, or am I right?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAnd this one time, a balloon went up rather than down!
[b]just one missing link found would be proof of evolution.
Yeah, like when the skull of a missing link to man was heralded, until someone identified it as the skull of a femail gorilla. Then a few years later the skull of a missing link to man was found and reported... with the same result. Being fooled the first time was bad enough, but twice wi ...[text shortened]... r let me guess... the default response is to deny that ever happened. Am I right, or am I right?[/b]
Therefore, general relativity is wrong.
Originally posted by @humyRight. It had to be punctuated equilibrium because it was an explosion, and as every knows punctuated equilibrium is evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Got it.
what is the sense of doing that?
He posted;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Notice what this link is of?
It is of the Cambrian explosion, which couldn't happen without punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion is evidence of punctuated equilibrium by definition; SURELY you don't need to see the words "punctuated ...[text shortened]... rium" means and then what "Cambrian explosion" means and then think how those two things relate.
Hallelujah and amen, brother. I has seen the light.
Originally posted by @humy...evolution isn't a theory of the fossil record.I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying,
In other words, you are unwilling to read any link containing any evidence that shows your opinions and assertions or religious beliefs to be totally wrong.
[quote] Starting from the premise of evolution you will be able to 'see' gaps in ...[text shortened]... e evidence, such as DNA evidence etc.
The reset of your posts are straw man and irrelevances.
No one said it was.
...your posts are straw man and irrelevances.
Can you hear yourself?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeso what if someone's claim of a missing link was false? What about all the hundreds that aren't false? The proof of missing links and evolution still stands. You really like stating irrelevances, don't you!
[b]just one missing link found would be proof of evolution.
Yeah, like when the skull of a missing link to man was heralded, until someone identified it as the skull of a femail gorilla. [/b]
Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Right. It had to be punctuated equilibrium because it was an explosion, and as every knows punctuated equilibrium is evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Got it.
Hallelujah and amen, brother. I has seen the light.
punctuated equilibrium is evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Got it.
the evidence of punctuated equilibrium is evidence of punctuated equilibrium; get it now?