lkeithlu
Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
Because I languish in moderation:
3
KL
04/20/2011
4:57 am
OK, that’s a start-2 days in moderation, although my last post on the thread WITH MY NAME ON IT has been in moderation for 5 days and counting. With this moderation policy my question is held until the conversation moves on before appearing, so I don’t get an answer.
I will ask again: Explain the fossil record for hominids (ages, features, distribution) using, as another poster said, the paradigm of ID. If ID is to be treated as science, it must explain the existing evidence (and new evidence) better than evolution.
4
Joseph
04/20/2011
7:17 am
KL,
ID is not anti-evolution, meaning you need a blind watchmaker explanation (for the fossils), not just an evolutionary explanation. Good luck with that.
Also ID does not require the supernatural. With ID it is ARTIFICIAL vs natural.
5
KL
04/20/2011
7:25 am
That’s not addressing the original claim, Joseph. The claim is that the explanations by physical and paleo-anthropologists is WRONG. So, if ID is the new paradigm, use it. Use it to explain the features, ages and distribution of the fossils. That’s what scientific theories are for. The authors here made these claims, essentially dismissing the work of my spouse and colleague. They made the claim, so they need to support it.
Maybe you want to give it a go? No one else here seems to want to.
6
Joseph
04/20/2011
7:47 am
But anyway KL- could you ask your spouse (and her colleague) if there is any genetic evidence that can be linked to the transformations.
IOW how can we test the claim that the fossils they have represent a lineage or tree or bush- that is represent common ancestry?
The point being is with 35 million years and new genes fruit flies are still fruit flies. Yet you expect us to accept that a slower reproducing population can make great gains in a shorter time period.
7
KL
04/20/2011
10:40 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Joseph, you are not answering the question. Explain the hominid fossil record from the ID paradigm. To do so you must actually discuss the fossils: their features, ages and distribution. Until you do (or someone does) the paradigm of evolution still reigns. That’s how science works. So, Wanna try again?
8
Joseph
04/20/2011
6:36 pm
OK KL, I will explain the pattern you (your wife and her colleague) see with the fossils- patternicity
9
KL
04/20/2011
7:12 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Joseph, that is simply not addressing the specifics. If you at UD know so much about these fossils that you know a better explanation than the folks that have done the work throughout their careers, then let’s have it. But you must use the specific features, ages and geographic distributions when doing so. The details matter.
BTW, I am female-my spouse is my husband. AND that’s colleagueS. Many colleagues that are anthropologists and biologists and geologists.
Of course, this post like my last one will; be in moderation for awhile. My last post was at 10:40 AM. I’s now after 7PM.
|
