Joined: June 2006
|Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 26 2012,12:16)|
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Nov. 25 2012,10:04)|
|Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 21 2012,21:41)|
... ID does not seek to replace evolution (We ARE evolutionists) ...
So you are an "evolutionist", and yet you dismiss all transitional fossils as somehow not valid, and I suspect that no fossil will ever satisfy you.
Does that mean that your idea of evolution does not include transitional fossils at all, and in fact no transition is needed? Then how did your kind of evolution happen?
Your argument seems inconsistent (and I was tempted to say dishonest).
You're welcome to call me dishonest if you wish, I have no problem with that..lol... But here is the truth:
Evolution is a fact of science. Populations mutate every second and at least some of those mutations will become fixed in the gene pools of those populations.
That is the classic definition of evolution. You can define evolution anyway use choose, I suppose...but the above is how a biologist that writes a 101 textbook would define it. I wholeheartedly agree with those textbooks.
Evolution is NOT defined as natural selection waving a magic wand and all kinds of critters begin spewing forth from others, ethreally popping out as new species against the laws of science or at least the scientific definition of a sexual species...
That MAY be YOUR definition of evolution, but I can assure you that it doesn't come from the scientific method.
And no, I don't dismiss transitional fossils, I simply said there isn't any in existence that are noncontroversial and well accepted as such.......It's hard to intentionally dismiss something that does not exist...:)))
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT