How About THAT
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
The list is HUGE
What about plants?
Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
160 million years.
Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in
the same form for 140 million years.
Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record
dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which
has been in its present form for 136 million years.
Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn't
changed for 65 million years.
Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the
same form for 65 million years.
The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for
Darwin's theory.
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_on_evolution.html
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
wf3h
> .
>
> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
humans are different than apes. evolution
whales are different than fish. evolution
>
> The list is HUGE
you can't demonstrate what DID happen by what DIDN"T happen. last week
a flood didnt happen
guess that means floods never happen.
evolution is testable and observed in the lab. it's observed TODAY in
nature. it's observed in the fossil record.
your logic is faulty and easily refuted.
have a nice day.
Boikat
>
> --
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Got any 300 million year old mice?
Got any 300 millio year old camels?
Got any 400 million year old snakes?
How about any 400 million year old birds?
No? Huh. Despite examles of organisms the appear to be relatively
unchanged, there also appears to be something else going on that
allows for diversification through time. And the list of species that
existed, but no longer exist, is even larger then your list of extant
species which *appear* unchanged.
It must be that "evolution" thing.
Boikat
John Harshman
[snip]
That was a list of extant species that you claim are the same as extant
species. What was the poin of that? There are, in each case, extinct
species that are different.
> No evolution
I will agre that no evolution has occurred between the present and the
present. But so what?
> The list is HUGE
And pointless.
> What about plants?
>
> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
> 160 million years.
>
> Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in
> the same form for 140 million years.
>
> Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record
> dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
> Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which
> has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
> Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
> years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
> Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn't
> changed for 65 million years.
>
> Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the
> same form for 65 million years.
>
> The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for
> Darwin's theory.
Again, nonsense, though a slightly different sort. If you had any idea
what you were saying, I would argue with you. As it is, I'll just
mention that the fossil record of plants is one of the best examples of
evolutionary progression over a long period that we have; starting with
primitive bryophytes and ending up with angiosperms, each major group
appears in order.
> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_on_evolution.html
>
Augray
in <cIKyl.20749$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> :
[snip]
>12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
False. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
>13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
False. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
>The list is HUGE
Only if you ignore the evidence. Did the writer of the webpage
actually investigate the fossil record before making these claims?
[snip]
>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_on_evolution.html
[M]adman
read it again
1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
No evolution
The list is HUGE
[M]adman
Yeah, the ole mystical magical "evolution" thing. a
And YOU are the man behind the curtain
John Harshman
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:48:11 -0500, "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote
> in <cIKyl.20749$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> :
>
> [snip]
>
>> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>
>> No evolution
>
> False. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
No, true. Note exactly what Madman says, which is not quite what the web
site he copied it from says. Ornithorhynchus anatinus *is* todays
variety. The fact that fossil platypodes differ from the modern species
isn't relevant to his actual claim.
OK, that may not be what he meant to say. But do we have to (shudder)
read his mind (a word I use loosely in the current case)?
>> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>
>> No evolution
>
> False. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
Ditto.
Augray
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in
<yHLyl.2895$im1....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com> :
>Augray wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:48:11 -0500, "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote
>> in <cIKyl.20749$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>>
>> False. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
>
>No, true. Note exactly what Madman says, which is not quite what the web
>site he copied it from says. Ornithorhynchus anatinus *is* todays
>variety.
D'oh!
>The fact that fossil platypodes differ from the modern species
>isn't relevant to his actual claim.
>
>OK, that may not be what he meant to say. But do we have to (shudder)
>read his mind (a word I use loosely in the current case)?
I try to keep my interlocutor in mind, but sometimes that's a *hard*
thing to do.
>>> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>>
>> False. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuatara
>
>Ditto.
Rub it in!
Augray
in <cIKyl.20749$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net> :
>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_on_evolution.html
This page also makes the wild claim that kiwi fossils "date back to
the Cretaceous period 95 million years ago". I'm unaware of *any* kiwi
fossils, and there are certainly none from the Cretaceous.
John Harshman
the site gives no source, we are left to wonder.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 8:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> .
>
> >> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> > humans are different than apes. evolution
>
> > whales are different than fish. evolution
>
> >> The list is HUGE
>
> > you can't demonstrate what DID happen by what DIDN"T happen. last week
> > a flood didnt happen
>
> > guess that means floods never happen.
>
> > evolution is testable and observed in the lab. it's observed TODAY in
> > nature. it's observed in the fossil record.
>
> > your logic is faulty and easily refuted.
>
> > have a nice day.
>
> read it again
>
no flood happened last week.
floods never happened.
i didn't die yesterday. i'll never die.
i'm not driving in my car right now. i never drive.
your logic is faulty. you can not tell what DOES happen by what
DOESN'T happen
evolution is observed
deal with it.
Nomen Publicus
Do you know what "essentially" means?
>
> What about plants?
>
> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
> 160 million years.
>
> Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in
> the same form for 140 million years.
>
> Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record
> dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
> Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which
> has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
> Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
> years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
> Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn't
> changed for 65 million years.
>
> Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the
> same form for 65 million years.
Nice to see you've accepted that the earth is more than 10,000 years old.
>
> The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for
> Darwin's theory.
>
> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_on_evolution.html
>
> --
> It is all about the truth with:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ?.?Adman?.?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
--
1034 gods I don't believe in: http://anya.sighup.org.uk/gods.html
Ernest Major
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
palaeontology professors asking for access to his 95 million year old
kiwi fossils?
--
alias Ernest Major
VoiceOfReason
1 - Describe something he doesn't understand.
2 - Therefore evolution is false.
Look up the logical fallacy "Argument From Incredulity"
Devils Advocaat
> .
>
> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
[snipped for brevity]
>
> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>
Taken verbatim from your source:
"Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest
single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved.
Bacteria vote no to evolution."
Now having done a little digging I found this:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
Keep that name in mind.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/237/4810/70
"Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil microorganisms
have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts from the Early
Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of northwestern Western
Australia. The cell types detected suggest that cyanobacteria, and
therefore oxygen-producing photosynthesis, may have been extant as
early as 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among
the oldest now known from the geologic record; their discovery
substantiates previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in
Warrawoona Group strata."
There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I can
tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time period
stated in your source.
So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria don't
have fossils dating back that far?
Your source is in error.
There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found in
the early fossil record.
Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
LTfl...@hotmail.com
If Madman cared one bit about actually understanding and learning
rather than bullshitting, he'd have done this research for himself and
realized that what he was about to post would only make him look like
a fool.
If only he'd cared...
LT
[M]adman
Intimidation tactic?
[M]adman
You do not keep up, do you?>
heh....
[M]adman
Drama Queen.
Chris has been dethroned
[M]adman
One example hardly discounts ALL of that information
Bob T.
In this case, I think it's an "Argument from Imbecility".
- Bob T.
John Harshman
I'm afraid that in order to do that I would first have to convince the
paleontologists that he did indeed have such fossils.
wf3h
one example is fatal in science. you can't be slightly pregnant.
John Harshman
redd...@bresnan.net
> .
>
> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
There are millions of species of prokaryotes. The fact that bacteria
evolve resistance to antibiotics is evidence evolution has taken
place.
>
> 2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety.
That's a genus of Velvet worms. It includes at least 3 species,
indicating that evolution has taken place.
>
> No evolution
>
> 3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
Again, this is a genus, not a species. That there are multiple
species indicates that evolution has indeed taken place.
>
> No evolution
>
> 4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
From: http://www.weichtiere.at/Mollusks/Andere/neopilina.html
"For a major period of time Neopilina, being a living fossil, served
as a model organism for a possible archaic mollusc. Taking into
account fossil records two evolutionary lines were distinguished, one
of which lead from archaic molluscs like Neopilina to ancestors of the
recent scaphopods and bivalves, the other leading to the snails
(Gastropoda) and squid (Cephalopoda).
Today the characteristics of monoplacophorans which had first been
thought to be ancient, have been classified as modern, meaning later
evolved. Thus the status of Neopilina remains unclear."
Nucula is a genus of clams, with about two dozen species. Obviously
evolution has taken place to produce that many species.
>
> No evolution
>
> 5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
Seems to be a misspelling of Pycnogonum The site
http://www.marinespecies.org/pycnobase/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=134595
lists a large number of species of this genus of sea spiders.
Adaptive radiation is evolution.
>
> No evolution
>
> 6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
As far as I can tell, Hutchinsoniella is not found in the fossil
record, only one living species.
>
> No evolution
rather difficult to tell, as there isn't any fossil form to compare it
to.
>
> 7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
Again, a genus with a large number of existing species.
>
> No evolution
>
> 8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
This refers to an entire FAMILY of organisms. Fossil examples
include those with a straight, rather than curved shell.
>
> No evolution
>
> 9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
There are presently two existing species, and many fossil species.
>
> No evolution
>
> 10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
Actually, L. chalumnae *is* today's variety. Modern ceolcanths are
quite different from fossils ones.
>
> No evolution
>
> 11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
A genus of snails.
>
> No evolution
>
> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
As above, O. anatinus is today's variety. Fossil platypods are
different.
>
> No evolution
>
> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
again, this is the modern variety. Fossil species, while similar,
are not the same.
>
> No evolution
>
> The list is HUGE
Also misleading. It seems to be based on the false concept that
evolution requires that organisms undergo morphological changes. When
an organism has a stable habitat, or niche, there may be little
selectional pressure to change morphology. Look up "stabilizing
selection".
>
> What about plants?
>
> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
> 160 million years.
Well, there are fossil forms that are similar, but the modern tree
isn't the same as the fossil ones.
>
> Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in
> the same form for 140 million years.
Good for them.
>
> Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record
> dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
Why should they?
>
> Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which
> has been in its present form for 136 million years.
If there are multiple species, then they haven't remained the
same.....
>
> Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
> years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
It's similar, but not the same...
>
> Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn't
> changed for 65 million years.
>
> Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the
> same form for 65 million years.
>
> The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for
> Darwin's theory.
Actually,, both plant and animal fossils give support to Darwin's
theory. Darwin's theory doesn't require gross morphological change
to occur, only that large scale changes do happen.
>
> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>
Try checking things out for yourself, rather than depend on
creationist websites.
DJT
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <4hNyl.21196$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
If you actually had the evidence, this would not be a problem. As you _don't_
have the evidence...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
John Harshman
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>> [snipped for brevity]
>>> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>>>
>> Taken verbatim from your source:
>>
>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest
>> single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>> That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved.
>> Bacteria vote no to evolution."
>>
>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
>>
>> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
>>
>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
>>
>> Keep that name in mind.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil microorganisms
>> have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts from the Early
>> Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of northwestern Western
>> Australia. The cell types detected suggest that cyanobacteria, and
>> therefore oxygen-producing photosynthesis, may have been extant as
>> early as 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among
>> the oldest now known from the geologic record; their discovery
>> substantiates previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in
>> Warrawoona Group strata."
>>
>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I can
>> tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time period
>> stated in your source.
>>
>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria don't
>> have fossils dating back that far?
>>
>> Your source is in error.
>>
>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found in
>> the early fossil record.
>>
>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>
> One example hardly discounts ALL of that information
>
No, but the fact that it's the very first example should give you pause.
Do you think it's likely he could have done something similar with the
second example, or the third, etc.?
Let's look.
"Peripatopsis: The South African "walking worm" genus of the Onychophora
family. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the
Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of stability.
Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution."
The first problem with this is that Onychophora isn't a family but a
phylum, from which he has chosen a single genus.
The second is that Onychophora, strictly speaking, is unknown from the
Cambrian. Onychophora is a terrestrial group, and all Cambrian animals
are aquatic. Some might imagine that there were significant differences
betwen aquatic and terrestrial animals. This is akin to saying that
because there were vertebrates in the Cambrian and humans today, there
has been no evolution.
Third, the aquatic onychophoran relatives of the Cambrian don't appear
at the beginning of the period, but about 20 million years later.
Fourth, those relatives are clearly not onychophorans. In addition to
being aquatic, they have various unusual features of their own -- often,
for example, extensive armor -- and lack several features of modern
onychophorans. None belong to living species, or genera, or even the
extant phylum.
So now what? Are you going to say "Two examples hardly discount ALL of
that information"? Does someone have to go on to the third, fourth, and
all the way through the list, or does this sample seem to be pointing in
a clear direction?
John Harshman
can ignore the rest of it. Are you really sure you want to make that
assertion?
Bill
> On Mar 26, 8:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> humans are different than apes. evolution
Hexagons are different from pentagons. Evolution?
> whales are different than fish. evolution
Surely you meant, whales are different from land born mammals?
[M]adman
[M]adman
Oh?
heh.....
Well now. 90% of science is wrong using YOUR standard.
[M]adman
> On Mar 26, 6:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> .
>>
>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>
>> No evolution
>
>
> There are millions of species of prokaryotes. The fact that bacteria
> evolve resistance to antibiotics is evidence evolution has taken
> place.
It is STILL bacteria
,cut.
[M]adman
Nope. *I* am going to say so what. If the entire list is wrong it does not
matter because you know as well as i know that there are many species that
have /not/ been acted upon by evolution for millions of years. Do you claim
otherwise?
So the point of my post remains the same.
Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not"; evolution
either applies to the origins of all species or it does not.
GCPAXS...@spammotel.com
That's a rather general category. In M's case, the "argument
from just stating your conclusion" might be more specific.
Regards,
Karel
wf3h
i'll agree with that.
and supernaturalism?
100% wrong. always. without exception.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> Boikat wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 7:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> .
>
> >> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's
> >> variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> The list is HUGE
>
> >> What about plants?
>
> >> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for
> >> at least 160 million years.
>
> >> Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have
> >> remained in the same form for 140 million years.
>
> >> Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil
> >> record dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
> >> Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern
> >> Hemisphere which has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
> >> Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135
> >> million years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
> >> Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It
> >> hasn't changed for 65 million years.
>
> >> Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted
> >> in the same form for 65 million years.
>
> >> The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no
> >> support for Darwin's theory.
>
> >>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>
> >> --
> >> It is all about the truth with:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Got any 300 million year old mice?
>
> > Got any 300 millio year old camels?
>
> > Got any 400 million year old snakes?
>
> > How about any 400 million year old birds?
>
> > No? Huh. Despite examles of organisms the appear to be relatively
> > unchanged, there also appears to be something else going on that
> > allows for diversification through time. And the list of species that
> > existed, but no longer exist, is even larger then your list of extant
> > species which *appear* unchanged.
>
> > It must be that "evolution" thing.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Yeah, the ole mystical magical "evolution" thing. a
>
> And YOU are the man behind the curtain
Translation: I've been shown to be full of shit again, so I'll spout
some meaningless insults.
TomS
<stOyl.20873$v8.1...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, [M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>
stated..."
Bacteria - I presume you mean what is now called the *Domain* of
Eubacteria. There is another Domain of "bacteria", the Archaea.
Anyway, if you are saying that the Domain Eubacteria is a "kind",
then we can suppose that the Domain Eukaryota is also a "kind".
So, if an amoeba evolves to a worm, or a worm to a fish, or a
fish to a mammal, those are all "still Eukaryotes", and that's
just "micro"evolution.
I'm willing (just speaking for myself, not for the scientists) to
compromise with you, and not dispute with you whether there is
"macro"evolution between "kinds", where "kind" equals Domain, and
just insist upon evolution within "kinds".
Heck, I'm willing to be even more generous, and narrow that "micro"-
evolution to within "sub-kinds" - where a "sub-kind" is a Superphylum
(several steps narrower than Domain), like within the Superphylum
Deuterostomia (including Chordata, Echinodermata, Hemichordata, and
some others). OK?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Devils Advocaat
>
> - Show quoted text -
Okay, here is another one.
Your statement:
“2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety. No
evolution.”
From your source:
“Peripatopsis: The South African "walking worm" genus of the
Onychophora family. This creature has remained unchanged since the
beginning of the Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of
stability. Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobopod
“The oldest near-complete fossil lobopods date to the Lower Cambrian;
some are also known from Silurian lagerstätte. They resemble the
modern onychophorans (velvet worms) in their worm-like body shape and
numerous stub-legs. They differ in their possession of numerous dorsal
armour plates, "sclerita", which often cover the entire body and head.
Since they taper off into long, pointed spikes, these probably served
a role in defence against predators[citation needed]. Individual
sclerita are found among the so-called "small shelly fauna" (SSF) from
the early Cambrian period. The "lobopodia" group is considered to
include these Cambrian forms in addition to the extant onychophorans.”
Additional information for your benefit the taxonomic term Onychophora
is not a family it is a phylum.
Also Peripatopsis as a genus contains three living species P. alba, P.
clavigera, and P. leonina.
And none of these living species possesses dorsal plates.
Conclusion; evolution has occurred.
Do you really want me to go through the whole list?
Devils Advocaat
From the link I provided earlier that you obviously have chosen to
ignore.
Based on the morphology, DNA sequencing, conditions required and
biochemistry, scientists have classified bacteria into phyla:
1) Aquificae
2) Xenobacteria
3) Fibrobacter
4) Bacteroids
5) Firmicutes
6) Planctomycetes
7) Chrysogenetic
8) Cyanobacteria
9) Thermomicrobia
10) Chlorobia
11) Proteobacteria
12) Spirochaetes
13) Flavobacteria
14) Fusobacteria
15) Verrucomicrobia
Thats fifteen different phyla, not families, or genera, or species,
and not even "kinds".
So whining that "It is STILL bacteria" doesn't defend your position
one iota.
VoiceOfReason
Hence returning to Step 1.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Name two.
> Do you claim otherwise?
Yes, I do. We wouldn't necessarily know to what extent. Ordinary
fossils only show superficial morphological differences, and then not
always in detail.
>
> So the point of my post remains the same.
Yes. You describe something you don't understand, display disdain for
the facts, then respond with insults or simply repeating your claims
when you are shown to be wrong.
>
> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not"; evolution
> either applies to the origins of all species or it does not.
Not necessarily. Conceivably, we could soon produce new species via
genetic engineering. But so far the process of evolution is known to
have produced every species for which we have reasonable evidence
(e.g. cetaceans, humans, diatoms) and there is no reason to think
there are any that have come about thru other means.
Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise?
Kermit
Chris
You put your right post in
You put your right post out
You put your right post in
And you ~shake~ it all about.
You do the Goal Post Pokey
And you shift them all around
That's what it's all about!
You put your fossil in
You put your fossil out
You put your fossil in
And you ~shake~ it all about.
You do the Goal Post Pokey
And you shift them all around
That's what it's all about!
You put your quote mine in
You put your quote mine out
You put your quote mine in
And then you ~shake~ it all about.
You do the Goal Post Pokey
And you shift them all around
That's what it's all about!
Chris
wf3h
ROFLMAO!! which is not what i said.
one single counter example is all that's needed to destroy a theory.
if einstein's predictions of the bending of starlight had been
measured at twice the value he predicted, his theory would not have
stood.
evolution happens all the time. it happens to humans now. it does NOT
always, as you seem to think, lead to speciation.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Nope. *I* am going to say so what. If the entire list is wrong it does not
> matter because you know as well as i know that there are many species that
> have /not/ been acted upon by evolution for millions of years. Do you claim
> otherwise?
Surely you (and the web page author) should have chosen a few, then?
It seems an odd strategy to present a list that have changed, and then
claim that many unspecified species haven't, and those disprove
evolution.
[...]
redd...@bresnan.net
as one would expect it to be. Remember that evolution has no goal,
and no end point. Organisms can evolve quite a bit and remain
bacteria.
DJT
>
> ,cut.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>wf3h wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 8:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>>
>> humans are different than apes. evolution
>>
>> whales are different than fish. evolution
>>
>>>
>>> The list is HUGE
>>
>> you can't demonstrate what DID happen by what DIDN"T happen. last week
>> a flood didnt happen
>>
>> guess that means floods never happen.
>>
>> evolution is testable and observed in the lab. it's observed TODAY in
>> nature. it's observed in the fossil record.
>>
>> your logic is faulty and easily refuted.
>>
>> have a nice day.
>
>read it again
>
Already answered. Learn some science.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>.
>
>1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
Rubbish.
>
>The list is HUGE
Rubbish.
>
>What about plants?
>
>Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
>160 million years.
But they have evolved.
>
>Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have remained in
>the same form for 140 million years.
But they have evolved.
>
>Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil record
>dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
But they have evolved.
>
>Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere which
>has been in its present form for 136 million years.
But they have evolved.
>
>Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
>years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
But they have evolved.
>
>Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It hasn't
>changed for 65 million years.
But they have evolved. (and they cannot be both deciduous evergreen.)
>
>Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in the
>same form for 65 million years.
But they have evolved.
>
>The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for
>Darwin's theory.
But they have evolved.
>
Now grow up and learn some science.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
That is EXACTLY what you said. And Harshman even questioned you on it and
asked if you were sure you wanted to go there.
[M]adman
Talk to the hand K
Iain
> .
>
> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
>
> No evolution
>
> 3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
> The list is HUGE
>
> What about plants?
>
> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at least
> 160 million years.
>
> the same form for 140 million years.
>
> dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
> has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
> years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
> changed for 65 million years.
>
> same form for 65 million years.
Therefore?
--Iain
[M]adman
Exactly.
And THAT is in essence "each after their own kind". They may change, they
may evolve, but they are still essentially the bacteria that was started
with. They did /not/ morph or go through a complete gnome rewrite into a new
species.
>
>
>>
>> ,cut.
Mark Isaak
> Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>>
>> [snipped for brevity]
>>>
>>> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>>>
>> Taken verbatim from your source:
>>
>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest
>> single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>> That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved.
>> Bacteria vote no to evolution."
>>
>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
>>
>> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
>>
>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
>>
>> Keep that name in mind.
>>
>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/237/4810/70
>>
>> "Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil microorganisms
>> have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts from the Early
>> Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of northwestern Western
>> Australia. The cell types detected suggest that cyanobacteria, and
>> therefore oxygen-producing photosynthesis, may have been extant as
>> early as 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among
>> the oldest now known from the geologic record; their discovery
>> substantiates previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in
>> Warrawoona Group strata."
>>
>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I can
>> tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time period
>> stated in your source.
>>
>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria don't
>> have fossils dating back that far?
>>
>> Your source is in error.
>>
>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found in
>> the early fossil record.
>>
>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>
> One example hardly discounts ALL of that information
Actually, in this case, it does. One example of evolution shows that
your claim of no evolution is false.
And there are thousands of examples.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
VoiceOfReason
LTfl...@hotmail.com
> LTfle...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > rather than bullshitting, he'd have done this research for himself and
> > realized that what he was about to post would only make him look like
> > a fool.
>
> > If only he'd cared...
>
> > LT
>
> Drama Queen.
>
> Chris has been dethroned- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I guess we can add the term "Drama Queen" to the exhaustively long
list of terms you don't understand?
LT
John Harshman
Not all Cambrian lobopods are armored. Aysheia, for example. But they
still aren't onycophorans.
John Harshman
Yes I do. If you know of any such species, mention it here. Even if it's
unchanged morphologically, I should be able to present evidence that
it's changed genetically.
But aren't you the least bit embarrassed to have presented such a long
list, every item of which is wrong? Shouldn't that say something about
your credibility?
> So the point of my post remains the same.
Or, to put it another way, the absence of a point remains the same.
> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not"; evolution
> either applies to the origins of all species or it does not.
True. But of course that criterion is silly, so who cares?
LTfl...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 11:39 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>> .
> >>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
> >>>> No evolution
> >>> [snipped for brevity]
> >>>>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
> >>> Taken verbatim from your source:
> >>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest
> >>> single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
> >>> That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved.
> >>> Bacteria vote no to evolution."
> >>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
> >>>http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
> >>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
> >>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
> >>> Keep that name in mind.
> >>> "Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil microorganisms
> >>> have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts from the Early
> >>> Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of northwestern Western
> >>> Australia. The cell types detected suggest that cyanobacteria, and
> >>> therefore oxygen-producing photosynthesis, may have been extant as
> >>> early as 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among
> >>> the oldest now known from the geologic record; their discovery
> >>> substantiates previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in
> >>> Warrawoona Group strata."
> >>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I can
> >>> tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time period
> >>> stated in your source.
> >>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria don't
> >>> have fossils dating back that far?
> >>> Your source is in error.
> >>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found in
> >>> the early fossil record.
> >>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>
> > one example is fatal in science. you can't be slightly pregnant.
>
> can ignore the rest of it. Are you really sure you want to make that
> assertion?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's one interpretation, but I see no reason to believe that is what
wf3h was saying. He's just saying that a counterexample can indeed
send a theory back to the drawing board. And he's right.
LT
Devils Advocaat
group that gave rise to the onychophorans, at least according to some
websites I have read.
>
> > Additional information for your benefit the taxonomic term Onychophora
> > is not a family it is a phylum.
>
> > Also Peripatopsis as a genus contains three living species P. alba, P.
> > clavigera, and P. leonina.
>
> > And none of these living species possesses dorsal plates.
>
> > Conclusion; evolution has occurred.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
redd...@bresnan.net
> reddfr...@bresnan.net wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 11:01 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> reddfr...@bresnan.net wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 6:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>> .
>
> >>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >>>> No evolution
>
> >>> There are millions of species of prokaryotes. The fact that bacteria
> >>> evolve resistance to antibiotics is evidence evolution has taken
> >>> place.
>
> >> It is STILL bacteria
>
> > as one would expect it to be. Remember that evolution has no goal,
> > and no end point. Organisms can evolve quite a bit and remain
> > bacteria.
>
> > DJT
>
> Exactly.
>
> And THAT is in essence "each after their own kind".
and all of life is the same kind. The point is that you are
dismissing large scale evolution, just because the organism didn't
turn into something other than what you expect.
> They may change, they
> may evolve, but they are still essentially the bacteria that was started
> with.
Except that they are different. In the same way ape populations have
changed and evolved, but essentially they are still apes, which happen
to have big brains and walk upright.
> They did /not/ morph or go through a complete gnome rewrite into a new
> species.
Darn, you were making progress there, you were actually spelling
genome correctly for a moment. As has been pointed out to you many
times, the change from last common ancestor of chimps and humans to
humans didn't require a complete re-write, only a slight modification
of the genome. Evolutionary change doesn't re-write the genome, it
makes subtle revisions. Humans are still recognizably apes, and still
recognizably mammals, etc, etc, all the way up the line to the LCA of
everything.
"morphing" isn't required, only subtle changes from generation to
generation.
DJT
LTfl...@hotmail.com
Madman, "bacteria" is not a species. Bacteria can, do, and have
evolved into other bacterial species. It's not a complete genome
rewrite, but it is a changed genome. But, you're getting closer to
getting it. Keep going...
LT
LT
redd...@bresnan.net
> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
>
> > Not necessarily. Conceivably, we could soon produce new species via
> > genetic engineering. But so far the process of evolution is known to
> > have produced every species for which we have reasonable evidence
> > (e.g. cetaceans, humans, diatoms) and there is no reason to think
> > there are any that have come about thru other means.
>
> > Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise?
>
> > Kermit
>
> Talk to the hand K
Except that the hand might actually learn something....
DJT
Dwib
> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> No evolution
>
You are so stupid.
Sharks haven't evolve in umpteem million years. Why? Because they
don't need to.
Dwib
John Harshman
> That's one interpretation, but I see no reason to believe that is what
> wf3h was saying. He's just saying that a counterexample can indeed
> send a theory back to the drawing board. And he's right.
Depends on the theory, and on the counterexample. Especially in biology,
there are exceptions to almost everything, but we don't usually throw
out theories because of single exceptions. We just suppose that the
theories are only approximations and don't control for all factors. If a
theory is right for 999 cases and wrong for 1, we usually to with the
999. There's undoubtedly a reason for that 1, and that would bear
investigating, but a theory that's usually right is too good to throw
out. Now if you came up with a comparable theory that explained all
1000, without getting too much more complex, we'd trade in.
John Harshman
Unless those web sites present actual phylogenies based on character
analysis, I would be wary. What appears to be the case is that Cambrian
lopopods are not onychophorans. They may or may not form a clade. They
may or may not be paraphyletic to modern onychophorans. That's what
character analysis is for. I know of no studies showing that the armored
lobopods are closer to onychophorans than Aysheia is. I know of no
studies showing that tardigrades are not also within that group. Maybe
you do.
Another point is that some lobopods (though not the onychophoran-like
ones) may be closer to arthropods. Some (Opabinia, Anomalocaris, etc.)
may actually be stem-arthropods.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
No thanks. I prefer to talk to the lurkers, and to myself.
I know that you aren't listening, anymore than my wooden dummy feels
my slaps, whether strong or ...not so strong.
I was raised to be ignorant, and to deny my own thoughts, and the
evidence of my eyes. I have long since inured myself to the sight of
people who do not hunger to know. But *I wanted to know, and I climbed
out of the darkness of superstition and self-imposed ignorance. There
may be others out there, waiting to hear the right phrase. And I
always need my own thoughts clarified and corrected if need be. Unlike
creationists, who support each other even when they greatly differ,
scientists and science nerds will call each other out on errors even
when they substantially agree.
So as long as you post here, I will use you as a sounding board,
whether you are impervious to reason and facts, or not.
Kermit
[M]adman
No, he is saying if *I*, as a believer in creation, present something with a
single item wrong then ALL of it is wrong.
While Harshman says that a scientific theory can have an item or items wrong
but the overall theory is still accepted.
And you know what that equals? That equals the same old double standard crap
that the evolutionist applies to data here on T.O.
[M]adman
Turtles.
>
> But aren't you the least bit embarrassed to have presented such a long
> list, every item of which is wrong? Shouldn't that say something about
> your credibility?
Not every item is wrong. Only your interpretation of the evidence differs.
>
>> So the point of my post remains the same.
>
> Or, to put it another way, the absence of a point remains the same.
>
Nooooo000OOOP the point remains the same. Evolution seems to be picky
regarding what it will and will not evolve under the same selective
pressures and mutations.
Why is THAT?
>> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not";
>> evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does
>> not.
>
> True. But of course that criterion is silly, so who cares?
Not according to wf3h and some others. Now who do we believe?
Burkhard
hose with the better arguments and better evidence
Burkhard
nope, try another one
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/11/081126-oldest-turtle.html
[M]adman
Two symptoms of a psychosis
[M]adman
Who's interpretation of the evidence prey tell?
redd...@bresnan.net
> Burkhard wrote:
snip
>
> >>> True. But of course that criterion is silly, so who cares?
>
> >> Not according to wf3h and some others. Now who do we believe?
>
> > hose with the better arguments and better evidence
>
> Who's interpretation of the evidence prey tell?
The one that best explains the evidence, without over complicating
matters.
DJT
David Hare-Scott
>> So now what? Are you going to say "Two examples hardly discount ALL
>> of that information"? Does someone have to go on to the third,
>> fourth, and all the way through the list, or does this sample seem
>> to be pointing in a clear direction?
>
> Nope. *I* am going to say so what. If the entire list is wrong it
> does not matter because you know as well as i know that there are
> many species that have /not/ been acted upon by evolution for
> millions of years. Do you claim otherwise?
>
This is a straw man. Evolutionary theory does not say that every organism
must evolve all the time. The prediction is that some species do not
changed for a long time and others change quite quickly depending on
circumstance, this is what we see.
> So the point of my post remains the same.
>
Indeed it does remain the same, that is there is no point at all. You, or
rather your creationist sources, have been refuted again.
> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not";
> evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does not.
Evolution is applicable to every living thing but not every combination of
circumstances produces speciation in a given timeframe.
David
Burkhard
yours, if you have are the one who has to decide which one of the two
is right
Garamond Lethe
> unrestra...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Name two.
>>
>>> Do you claim otherwise?
>>
>> Yes, I do. We wouldn't necessarily know to what extent. Ordinary
>> fossils only show superficial morphological differences, and then not
>> always in detail.
>>
>>
>>> So the point of my post remains the same.
>>
>> Yes. You describe something you don't understand, display disdain for
>> the facts, then respond with insults or simply repeating your claims
>> when you are shown to be wrong.
>>
>>
>>> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not";
>>> evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does not.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Conceivably, we could soon produce new species via
>> genetic engineering. But so far the process of evolution is known to
>> have produced every species for which we have reasonable evidence
>> (e.g. cetaceans, humans, diatoms) and there is no reason to think there
>> are any that have come about thru other means.
>>
>> Do you have any evidence indicating otherwise?
>>
>> Kermit
>
> Talk to the hand K
Name two.
[M]adman
I have already said many times that no one has absolute truth.
Boikat
> Boikat wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 7:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> .
>
> >> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's
> >> variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> 13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >> No evolution
>
> >> The list is HUGE
>
> >> What about plants?
>
> >> Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for
> >> at least 160 million years.
>
> >> Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have
> >> remained in the same form for 140 million years.
>
> >> Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil
> >> record dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
> >> Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern
> >> Hemisphere which has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
> >> Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135
> >> million years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
> >> Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It
> >> hasn't changed for 65 million years.
>
> >> Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted
> >> in the same form for 65 million years.
>
> >> The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no
> >> support for Darwin's theory.
>
> >>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>
> >> --
> >> It is all about the truth with:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > Got any 300 million year old mice?
>
> > Got any 300 millio year old camels?
>
> > Got any 400 million year old snakes?
>
> > How about any 400 million year old birds?
>
> > No? Huh. Despite examles of organisms the appear to be relatively
> > unchanged, there also appears to be something else going on that
> > allows for diversification through time. And the list of species that
> > existed, but no longer exist, is even larger then your list of extant
> > species which *appear* unchanged.
>
> > It must be that "evolution" thing.
>
> > Boikat
>
> Yeah, the ole mystical magical "evolution" thing. a
As I've said before, you are a perfect example of Clarkes Third Law.
The ToE is too complex for you to understand, therefore, to you, it's
"magic".
>
> And YOU are the man behind the curtain-
News flash: "The Wizard of Oz" Is not a documentary.
Sorry.
Boikat
John Harshman
It's only a double standard if the same person makes both claims.
John Harshman
Turtles aren't a species. There are 260 living species and many extinct
ones, with a broad range of characters. They have changed quite a bit
morphologically since their origin, and of course they vary tremendously
genetically.
Try again.
>> But aren't you the least bit embarrassed to have presented such a long
>> list, every item of which is wrong? Shouldn't that say something about
>> your credibility?
>
> Not every item is wrong. Only your interpretation of the evidence differs.
Really? Tell me an item that's right, and we'll have a look at it.
>>> So the point of my post remains the same.
>> Or, to put it another way, the absence of a point remains the same.
>>
>
> Nooooo000OOOP the point remains the same. Evolution seems to be picky
> regarding what it will and will not evolve under the same selective
> pressures and mutations.
That wasn't your point. I believe your point was that there was no
evolution at all because all species were unchanged from the beginning.
All examples so far have turned out to be wrong. So far, evolution isn't
picky at all.
> Why is THAT?
It isn't.
>>> Using wf3h's criteria of "you are either pregnant or you are not";
>>> evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does
>>> not.
>> True. But of course that criterion is silly, so who cares?
>
> Not according to wf3h and some others. Now who do we believe?
Actually, not even wf3h made that claim. You're the one who made that
claim. And of course we have no reason to believe you.
John Harshman
Dave Oldridge
news:YhLyl.20762$9a....@bignews1.bellsouth.net:
>wf3h wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 8:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> .
>>>
>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>
>>> No evolution
>>
>> humans are different than apes. evolution
>>
>> whales are different than fish. evolution
>>
>>>
>>> The list is HUGE
>>
>> you can't demonstrate what DID happen by what DIDN"T happen. last
>> week a flood didnt happen
>>
>> guess that means floods never happen.
>>
>> evolution is testable and observed in the lab. it's observed TODAY in
>> nature. it's observed in the fossil record.
>>
>> your logic is faulty and easily refuted.
>>
>> have a nice day.
>
>read it again
>
>1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>2) Peripatopsis is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>3) Lingula is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>4) Neopilina and Nucula essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>5) Pyenogonum is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>6) Hutchinsoniella is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>7) Liphistius is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>8) Nautilus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>9) Anaspides is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>10) Latimeria chalumnae is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>11) Entemnotrochus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>12) Ornithorhynchus anatinus is essentially the same as today's
>variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>13) Sphenodon punctatus is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
>No evolution
>
>The list is HUGE
>
>What about plants?
>
>Ginkgo biloba: The maidenhair tree has been in its present form for at
>least 160 million years.
>
>Dipteris: A family of eight species of eastern Asian ferns have
>remained in the same form for 140 million years.
>
>Matonia: A genus of terrestrial ferns has been found in the fossil
>record dating 140 million years. They too haven't changed.
>
>Araucaria: Tall evergreen tree genus native to the Southern Hemisphere
>which has been in its present form for 136 million years.
>
>Cycas: Evergreen tree with pennate leaves which dates back 135 million
>years. Its the same today as it was in the Cretaceous period.
>
>Sequoia: Tall deciduous evergreen genus native to North America. It
>hasn't changed for 65 million years.
>
>Stylites: Quillwort genus, an aquatic plant which has also persisted in
>the same form for 65 million years.
>
>The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support
>for Darwin's theory.
>
>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vote_
>on_evolution.html
Name one Cambrian mammal.
>
>--
>It is all about lies with:
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>·.¸Adman¸.·
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
[M]adman
Trilobites
Mike Dworetsky
news:ae%yl.21098$9a.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Ya got us, fair and square. Trilobites exist today, unevolved from their
Cambrian ancestors, and bear live young rather than eggs, suckle them, have
hair, and are warm-blooded. Conclusion: evolution must therefore be wrong.
[ :-) just in case.]
Any more dazzling one-word "facts" you want to throw at the world?
[In the vain hope your ignorance can be cured: trilobites were arthropods,
they are totally extinct and have been for around 250 MY, they have no
living close relatives (though many distantly-related species exist today).]
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
So what? One of the people replies to you uses a Popperian notion of
science with strict falsification, the other a more recent approach to
the theory of science where falsification to some extend can be
accommodated by the model. You wanted to know which one was right -
well, do the homework, check the arguments brought forward for each
side, and make up your mind. No absolute truth involved - but some
actual thinking, sorry
Ernest Major
>>> Name one Cambrian mammal.
>>
>> Trilobites
alias Ernest Major
Devils Advocaat
[snipped]
> > Name one Cambrian mammal.
>
> Trilobites
>
In the category "Doesn't know his Arthropodia from his Eutheria".
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> It is all about lies with:
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <Xns9BDAEB0A42CDF...@69.16.185.250>):
H. creationist cretoni. It's the only known mammal which comes
pre-fossilised, standard, being solid granite from ear to ear.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<914c11d1-984a-4e64...@e2g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
> On Mar 26, 12:40 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> LTfle...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 26, 12:08 pm, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>
>>>>> .
>>
>>>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>
>>>>> No evolution
>>
>>>> [snipped for brevity]
>>
>>>>> http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>>
>>>> Taken verbatim from your source:
>>
>>>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest
>>>> single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>>>> That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved.
>>>> Bacteria vote no to evolution."
>>
>>>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
>>
>>>> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
>>
>>>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
>>>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
>>
>>>> Keep that name in mind.
>>
>>>> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/237/4810/70
>>
>>>> "Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil microorganisms
>>>> have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts from the Early
>>>> Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of northwestern Western
>>>> Australia. The cell types detected suggest that cyanobacteria, and
>>>> therefore oxygen-producing photosynthesis, may have been extant as
>>>> early as 3.3 billion to 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are
>>>> among the oldest now known from the geologic record; their discovery
>>>> substantiates previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in
>>>> Warrawoona Group strata."
>>
>>>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I can
>>>> tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time period
>>>> stated in your source.
>>
>>>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria don't
>>>> have fossils dating back that far?
>>
>>>> Your source is in error.
>>
>>>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found in
>>>> the early fossil record.
>>
>>>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>>
>>> If Madman cared one bit about actually understanding and learning
>>> rather than bullshitting, he'd have done this research for himself and
>>> realized that what he was about to post would only make him look like
>>> a fool.
>>
>>> If only he'd cared...
>>
>>> LT
>>
>> Drama Queen.
>>
>> Chris has been dethroned- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I guess we can add the term "Drama Queen" to the exhaustively long
> list of terms you don't understand?
>
It'd be simpler to compile a list of things that he _does_ understand.
Hmmm. Someone help me out here, I can't think of even one.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <ae%yl.21098$9a.1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net>):
the prosecution rests, m'lud.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d455880e-6128-43b4...@o11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> ·.žAdmanž.·
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>> Got any 300 million year old mice?
>>
>>> Got any 300 millio year old camels?
>>
>>> Got any 400 million year old snakes?
>>
>>> How about any 400 million year old birds?
>>
>>> No? Huh. Despite examles of organisms the appear to be relatively
>>> unchanged, there also appears to be something else going on that
>>> allows for diversification through time. And the list of species that
>>> existed, but no longer exist, is even larger then your list of extant
>>> species which *appear* unchanged.
>>
>>> It must be that "evolution" thing.
>>
>>> Boikat
>>
>> Yeah, the ole mystical magical "evolution" thing. a
>
> As I've said before, you are a perfect example of Clarkes Third Law.
> The ToE is too complex for you to understand, therefore, to you, it's
> "magic".
>
>>
>> And YOU are the man behind the curtain-
>
> News flash: "The Wizard of Oz" Is not a documentary.
That's too complex for him to understand, too. And it's <gasp! shock!
horror!> not an ancient text.
>
> Sorry.
He is, isn't he?
>
> Boikat
VoiceOfReason
I don't believe I just read that.
wf3h
> >> John Harshman wrote:
> >>> [M]adman wrote:
> >>>>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>>>> .
>
> >>>>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >>>>>> No evolution
> >>>>>>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
>
> >>>>> Taken verbatim from your source:
>
> >>>>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the
> >>>>> variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have
> >>>>> not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution."
>
> >>>>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
>
> >>>>>http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
>
> >>>>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
> >>>>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
>
> >>>>> Keep that name in mind.
>
> >>>>> microorganisms have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts
> >>>>> from the Early Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of
> >>>>> northwestern Western Australia. The cell types detected suggest
> >>>>> that cyanobacteria, and therefore oxygen-producing
> >>>>> photosynthesis, may have been extant as early as 3.3 billion to
> >>>>> 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among the oldest now
> >>>>> known from the geologic record; their discovery substantiates
> >>>>> previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in Warrawoona
> >>>>> Group strata."
>
> >>>>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I
> >>>>> can tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the time
> >>>>> period stated in your source.
>
> >>>>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria
> >>>>> don't have fossils dating back that far?
>
> >>>>> Your source is in error.
>
> >>>>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those found
> >>>>> in the early fossil record.
>
> >>>>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>
>
> >> evolution either applies to the origins of all species or it does
>
> > ROFLMAO!! which is not what i said.
>
> That is EXACTLY what you said. And Harshman even questioned you on it and
> asked if you were sure you wanted to go there.- Hide quoted text -
>
which led to a discussion on the nature of scientific evidence that
you did not understand.
wf3h
> LTfle...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 1:05 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >> wf3h wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 11:39 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>> Devils Advocaat wrote:
> >>>>> On 26 Mar, 12:48, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>>>> .
> >>>>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
> >>>>>> No evolution
> >>>>> [snipped for brevity]
> >>>>>>http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/153758/science/fossils_vo...
> >>>>> Taken verbatim from your source:
> >>>>> "Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the
> >>>>> oldest single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as
> >>>>> today's variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability.
> >>>>> They have not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution."
> >>>>> Now having done a little digging I found this:
> >>>>>http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-bacteria.html
> >>>>> Which mentions that there are at least fifteen different phyla of
> >>>>> bacteria, one of these being cyanobacteria.
> >>>>> Keep that name in mind.
> >>>>> "Cellularly preserved filamentous and colonial fossil
> >>>>> microorganisms have been discovered in bedded carbonaceous cherts
> >>>>> from the Early Archean Apex Basalt and Towers Formation of
> >>>>> northwestern Western Australia. The cell types detected suggest
> >>>>> that cyanobacteria, and therefore oxygen-producing
> >>>>> photosynthesis, may have been extant as early as 3.3 billion to
> >>>>> 3.5 billion years ago. These fossils are among the oldest now
> >>>>> known from the geologic record; their discovery substantiates
> >>>>> previous reports of Early Archean microfossils in Warrawoona
> >>>>> Group strata."
> >>>>> There's that name again, cyanobacteria, and in fact as far as I
> >>>>> can tell these are the only bacterial fossils approaching the
> >>>>> time period stated in your source.
> >>>>> So tell me, why is it that the other fifteen phyla of bacteria
> >>>>> don't have fossils dating back that far?
> >>>>> Your source is in error.
> >>>>> There are many prokaryotes today that are different to those
> >>>>> found in the early fossil record.
> >>>>> Conclusion, evolution has occurred.
>
> >>> one example is fatal in science. you can't be slightly pregnant.
>
> >> This suggests that if you find anything wrong in a scientific paper,
> >> you can ignore the rest of it. Are you really sure you want to make
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > wf3h was saying. He's just saying that a counterexample can indeed
> > send a theory back to the drawing board. And he's right.
>
> > LT
>
> No, he is saying if *I*, as a believer in creation, present something with a
> single item wrong then ALL of it is wrong.
>
> While Harshman says that a scientific theory can have an item or items wrong
> but the overall theory is still accepted.
>
> And you know what that equals? That equals the same old double standard crap
hardly. what i'm saying is that if a theory makes a prediction...eg
einstein's prediction that starlight would be bent a certain amount by
the spacetime distortion around the sun...and it was bent a different
amount, then the theory is wrong.
creationism can make no predictions. it has no testable mechanisms. if
creationists were able to produce an example of an organism that
existed de novo, that would falsify evolution.
and you haven't.
LTfl...@hotmail.com
> > wf3h was saying. He's just saying that a counterexample can indeed
> > send a theory back to the drawing board. And he's right.
>
Yes, of course. But he didn't say "all" theories or "all"
counterexamples. So, I'd say we're all in agreement then.
> Especially in biology,
> there are exceptions to almost everything, but we don't usually throw
> out theories because of single exceptions.
Not usually, no, but it can happen. In the case of evolution, where
there is so much support of the theory, it is highly unlikely.
> We just suppose that the
> theories are only approximations and don't control for all factors.
Agreed. This would apply to the ToE.
> If a theory is right for 999 cases and wrong for 1, we usually to with the
> 999. There's undoubtedly a reason for that 1, and that would bear
> investigating, but a theory that's usually right is too good to throw
> out. Now if you came up with a comparable theory that explained all
> 1000, without getting too much more complex, we'd trade in.- Hide quoted text -
>
Again, agreed.
LT
LTfl...@hotmail.com
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > wf3h was saying. He's just saying that a counterexample can indeed
> > send a theory back to the drawing board. And he's right.
>
>
> No, he is saying if *I*, as a believer in creation, present something with a
> single item wrong then ALL of it is wrong.
Creationism isn't a theory at all. It has exactly zero evidence. In
fact, you people don't even have a coherent definition of your so-
called "theory" at all. It debunks itself, for chrissakes.
> While Harshman says that a scientific theory can have an item or items wrong
> but the overall theory is still accepted.
Very often yes. It's not universally one way or another. Sufficiently
inadequate theories can be thrown in the trash quite easily if
contradictory evidence arises.
> And you know what that equals? That equals the same old double standard crap
> that the evolutionist applies to data here on T.O.- Hide quoted text -
Now this is what's called being a "drama queen".
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, Creationism isn't even a
theory. There is no evidence for it, no science to support it, no way
to test or verify it. Putting this on equal turf as the ToE, which has
volumes upon volumes of scientific evidence, is nothing short of
lunacy.
LT
Iain
> reddfr...@bresnan.net wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 11:01 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >> reddfr...@bresnan.net wrote:
> >>> On Mar 26, 6:48 am, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
> >>>> .
>
> >>>> 1) prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety.
>
> >>>> No evolution
>
> >>> evolve resistance to antibiotics is evidence evolution has taken
> >>> place.
>
> >> It is STILL bacteria
>
> > as one would expect it to be. Remember that evolution has no goal,
> > and no end point. Organisms can evolve quite a bit and remain
> > bacteria.
>
> > DJT
>
> Exactly.
>
> And THAT is in essence "each after their own kind".
No, never "after their own kind". Not once.
They take after their parents, like a photocopied document takes after
its parent copy(and not even with full accuracy).
Kinds have nothing to do with what's inherited.
> They may change, they
> may evolve,
Uhuh.
> but they are still essentially the bacteria
'Essentially bacteria' = intractible nonsense. Try again.
> that was started
> with.
No.
> They did /not/ morph
Right, and nobody says they did "morph". That others say they did, is
something you read on a deeply confusing Creationist website
somewhere.
> or go through a complete gnome rewrite
No, just continual readjustment, which over millions of years, amounts
to enourmous readjustment.
> into a new
> species.
Speciation is a brute fact, you strange and insane idiot.
--Iain
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<84a59b2f-8413-4610...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
He's a mine of misinformation. Trilobites are mammals. Hindus don't know
their own religion. The nuke strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed
millions. Atlantis is in the Atlantic _and_ the Mediterranean. Sanskrit is a
historical document.
He's just got to be a Loki, trying deliberately to make creationists look
bad. No-one could possibly accidentally all the errors and perpetuate all the
falsehoods that he does. I don't think that he's made one post where he
writes more than one line and yet avoids writing some kind of error, lie, or
distortion... and he manages to put in errors, lies, and distortions even
into some of his one-liners. He's either a Loki, and a brilliant if twisted
one, or the single most idiotic creationist in the entire history of
creationism, going all the way back to H. erectus. Hell, on the Internet no
one knows if you're a dog... are we sure that he isn't a chimp? One which was
bounced on its head a few times as an infant?
Iain
> Who's interpretation of the evidence prey tell?
You do realise that evidence showing that the species in your list
hardly evolve, is the exact same evidence that shows that other
species do evolve? It's the fossil record which tells us that a
species hasn't evolved. It's the same interpretation of the same
record that shows us that others do.
--Iain
Boikat
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
<snip>
>
> > Name one Cambrian mammal.
>
> Trilobites
>
OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!
I know five year olds that know better than that! And adman had the
nerve to ask me if I liked makeing *myself* look stupid to a "world
wide audience"? I'd almost be tempted to pay some good money to see
adman try to cover his ass on this one.
This is going to get added to the list of "Stupid Adman Claims".
"When asked to name one Cambrian mammal, replied 'trilobites'."
Crap, the stupidity it displays is enough to dump that list, and just
go with "claimed trilobites are Cambrian mammals"
Boikat