Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / December 2005

I am not a creationist, and I ask you again... are you saying the
quote is not legit? Are yo saying it is fabricated?

<snip>

You are a poor liar.

How do you define "creationist" in this regard? E.g. are you just
skeptical of common descent or you disagree entirely?
Do you believe that G*d or however you may call your deity
zipped humans into existence or that they evolved from apes?
Do you believe that all life on Earth has a universal common
ancestor? Do you believe that abiogenesis is possible?
Come on, you must have *some* kind of belief in creation
that's incompatible with the Theory of Evolution or
the Theory of Abiogenesis. Or why are you posting all this?

Popular science is not science. New scientist also reported
on "cold fusion" before it turned out to be an experimental mistake.

Which in turn proves that mammals have no common ancestor
and that the Earth is young and...

But this one isn't. Pre-Cambrian fossils have been found since.
What would be the point if I quoted some famous Greek
philosopher saying there is no evidence for the existence of
atoms. Or a renowned mathematician who said that given
300 years of failed attempts, Fermat's
Last Theorem is very likely in the realm of true, but
unprovable statements (it was eventually proven in 1995).

Do you agree that a reader who lacks knowledge of
the discoveries that happened *since*, might easily
be mislead by such an uncommented quotation?

Jabriol, you may as well snip now, because this is never going to stop
and it is only going to get worse for you as time goes on.  Here, let
me help you:
SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP

Is that why you refered us to the Genesis creation story in one of
your posts?

I have tackled you on many of your so-called "recent articles" and you
have fled from every single one of them, thereby proving evolution in
that you have evolved before my eyes from a jackass to a chicken.

Just because you have recently posted a pirated article that itself is
20 or 50 years old doesn't make it a recent article.

Once again I note that you very conveniently give no reference to this
"evolution shattering article" for us to check.  This is not
surprising since I am still waiting on you providing one to support
your claim that human DNA and banana DNA are 90% - no! it was 75%, no!
it was 60%, no! it was 50% - the same.  The one reference you gave to
me proved you to be a liar since it actually said we *may* share *up
to 30%* of our DNA, and made not a single mention of 75%.

I note that you did give a different reference in another thread that
I was not, at the time, involved in:
"Robert May is a UK Chief Scientist. In New Scientist magazine (July
1, 2000) on page 5 he stated, "We share half our genes with the
banana."

This is actually a statement, not a scientific demonstration of the
statement (you *can* tell the difference, presumably).  Unfortunately,
for you, I was able to look this one up on line.  I searched the _New
Scientist_ archives for the month of July 2000 (page 5) for both
"banana" and for "Robert May" and both searches came up blank.  Only
one mention of banana turned up in any edition for any page for that
month and that was simply a passing reference to local flora.

I can only conclude from this that you are either outright lying
again, which you have repeatedly been shown to do, or you have simply
got your "facts" totally screwed up yet again, which you have
repeatedly been shown to do.  I give up - which one is it?

While you're cogitating on that, please give some thought to answering
my other challenges, many of which I have been putting to you since
late August.  You claim right here in this thread that no one tackles
your questions.  That's simply another lie!

I have been able and willing to do that for 2 months now, and yet you
quietly have abandoned every single thread in which I have begun to
discuss your material with you, with all of my questions unaswered.
Is it something I said - like an unfortunate fact that you can't
handle - or what?

Just as a reminder, here is some of the unfinished business:
1. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that regardless of what it is
classed as, and regardless of whether it was or was not in the line to
birds, the archaeopteryx had pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of
reptile/dino and bird features and therefore represented an example of
a potential intermediate stage.

2. I am *still waiting* for you to admit that the okapi is pretty much
what a transitional giraffe would have looked like.

3. I am *still waiting* for you to explain why something akin to a
mouse, could not change 300 genes over 60 million years to become
either human or a modern mouse.

4. I am *still waiting* for you to acknowledge that no evolutionist
has ever claimed that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles and
that argument from incredulity addressing this non-issue, no matter
how ancient it is, does not constitute a "colossal hole" in the Theory
of Evolution.

5. I am *still waiting* for you to acknowledge that creationist
letters published as a courtesy (or maybe as a source of amusement) in
_New Scientist_ are *not* the equivalent of peer-reviewed science
papers, no matter how ancient and misguided they are.

6.  I am *still waiting* for you to post a **LIST** of these "colossal
holes" in the Theory of Evolution that you were blathering hopelessly
about back in August.

Any response to this that does not address these questions will be a
direct and open admission by you that you cannot answer them and that
each of the threads you started with your plagiarized material, that
these questions remain unanswered in, were nothing but useless banter
and lies.

Budikka

Then I would be thrilled if you could explain why you began a thread called:
"TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis"
http://tinyurl.com/rg0r

Or is this yet another lie we can add to the Jabriol stable?

Budikka

DUH...

what position exactly?

You can draw a chain of ancestry from the last proetid trilobite that
died out in the P-Tr extinction event back to the first trilobite to
appear in the Cambrian (I think that'd be a Redlichid).  You might not
get every detail right, but it'd be mostly correct.  Beyond that, you
can't go.  You can construct a diagram of how the arthropods possibly
diverged from some protoarthropod which in turn evolved from some
protobilateran.  But all the forms before that first trilobite are, at
this point, entirely hypothetical.

With a few exceptions, very little older than the classical lower
Cambrian boundary (except the porifera) makes much sense at this point.
Even widespread forms like Pternidium and the cloudinids exist pretty
much in isolation.  It's not clear how they relate to their
contemporaries, to older forms, or if they have descendents.  Yes,
there are a few forms -- Kimberella for example -- that very likely
will help.  But I don't think there are (yet) enough of them to see
what the picture will look like when (/if) it is put together.

person of various intermediate forms. There are also clues in the
record
of trace fossils and the "small shelly fauna".

I absolutely agree that the forms from the classical Cambrian are
tractable.  Sorting all of them out won't be easy.  They are amazingly
numerous and diverse.  But I'll be suprised if that isn't pretty much
accomplished in the next three decades or so.  It's the 60 or 70
million years prior to that seem to me to present a problem.  And yes,
the Lower Cambrian faunas will provide clues and constraints on what
could have come before.  But it's not at all obvious that there won't
still be substantial questions about what went on between say 600Ma and
525 or 530Ma after all the results from later times are assimilated.

It certainly is possible that there is plenty of evidence out there in
the Ediacaran and Lowest Cambrian not yet found, or not yet recognized
that will pull it all together.  But I don't think one can be sure of
that today.