Evolution is a myth

[Holden McGroin]

Hortland:

I read "Origin of Species", and generally, that is what he was describing.  He did explain the development of gender, and some other basics, but the vast majority of the book was decribing the process of natural selection.

Note: Origin of Species is an incredibly boring book.  I suggest reading the Cliff's notes.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StSanta
Holes in evolution? Will address those points.
 
[SNIP]

You know Santa...that is one big post saying pretty much "Yeah, we know that we haven't found any transitional fossils, but we're going to ignore that (because we have lots of excuses as to why we havent found any) and pretend that we did."

Over to your sharks Santa. You do realize that just because someone on a website lable them transitional fossils, that doesnt neccesarily make it so? But anyway, could you please point out what of those fossils that you listed that are transitional in your opinion? From a quick read, I could not find a single one that would appear to be transitional.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Steve, I'm assuming you mean the following:

Microevolution  - Changes within a species
Macroevolution - Changing from one species to another

You are aware I hope that they are one and the same thing, and use the same mechanisms. As populations diverge due to whatever reasonand begin to adapt o their environment, they will eventually change to the point where they discontinue to interbreed. They have effectively become 2 species.

Of course different species can still interbreed. It is possible for Canis Latrans to breed with Canis familiaris. Hell, I own one. So your micro / macro debate is a muddy cesspool you might want to leave alone.

thought this bore repeating

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Thanx Dead...

hehehe look its mr Sandman making yet another educated appearance in this thread. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say how much we all value your knife sharp posts analysing the more complex aspects of evolution.

[Sandman]

You misspelled analyzing, smart ass.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
You misspelled analyzing, smart ass.

Did I...or did I use the British spelling?

Might want to check the dictionary

Anyway, it is good to see that you are focusing on the important aspects of the discussion...

[Sandman]

You don't support your own argument. In fact I'm not even sure what your argument is. You simply tear at others.

As I understand biology, there is no relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. You contend that there is a difference. Many would disagree.


IMHO, given the choice between literal interpretations of the book of Genesis and evolution science...  the science holds up much better to scrutiny. Don't you agree?


Been reading http://www.trueorigin.com... an entire site devoted to tearing at http://www.talkorigin.com   I guess it's an entertaining hobby.

[Gunthr]

Here

[Sandman]

On the other hand... maybe science has got it all wrong...

On the first day we got light and dark... and the light was good. Fortunately for everyone, we got the sun on the fourth day because it was such a handy excuse for the light we got three days earlier.

All of the creatures on the planet were created at the same time. The fossils aren't really old nor are they really fossils. The dinosaurs were here right along with the cattle and other beasts and creatures that creepeth upon the earth. It's all in the documentation... mythology is chalk full of dragons. The dragons probably died out during the great flood. They probably weren't allowed onboard.

On the other hand... maybe the bones were just one more part of the creators plan to confuse us. There never really was any dragons. Those bones that we keep finding are from sick cattle or beasts, mishapen freaks that were not allowed to be fruitful or multiply.

Of course... the earth is only 8,000 years old and all the lights in the sky are nothing more than a huge cosmic joke by our creator to fool us into thinking that the universe is older than it actually is.

Shit... where did my goats run off to?

[StSanta]

Dead wrote:
"To be totally correct it's a taxonomic group whose members can interbreed to produce offspring that can also breed. Lions & Tigers can breed, as can donkeys and horses, but the offspring are sterile. However this ability is a pretty good indication that lions & tigers and donkeys & horses had common ancestors in the not too distant (in evolutionary terms) past."

Well, 'interbreed' implies that the offspring can breed themselves. I should have been more clear.

I will now. We're talking about a clandistic taxation here. The criterion for grouping things together is the closeness of cousinship or relative recency of common ancestry. As such, this taxonomy is not one seen for instance in public libraries where a classification is arbitrary - in clandistic taxonomy one can say whether a classification is *right or wrong*. Much more info can be found in 'The Blind Watchmaker, R. Dawkins, chapter 'The One True Tree Of Life''.


Hortlund wrote:
You know Santa...that is one big post saying pretty much "Yeah, we know that we haven't found any transitional fossils, but we're going to ignore that (because we have lots of excuses as to why we havent found any) and pretend that we did."

Over to your sharks Santa. You do realize that just because someone on a website lable them transitional fossils, that doesnt neccesarily make it so? But anyway, could you please point out what of those fossils that you listed that are transitional in your opinion? From a quick read, I could not find a single one that would appear to be transitional.

I offer you the science explanation of the trouble with fossils in general. If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem. Evidence suggests that these transitional being existed only for a very short while (on the evolution scale) which further decreases the likelihood of finding transitional fossils. Then there is the human problem of sorting through all the stuff. You dismiss that too. It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative. To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.

Ok, I'll give you something to peruse at your leisure, as it seems I am unable to educate you about quite simple things like strata, fossils and the problems involved.

Here is an example of speciation (i.e the transition from one species to another) supported by paleontolic evidence. It's dry reading though (read it myself at the public library a couple of years ago).
Carroll, R.  1988.  Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution.  W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York. Chapter 22 for transitions.

Tetrapods are rather well documented, so that's a good source.
Benton, M.J. (ed.)  1988.  The Phylogeny and Classification of the
Tetrapods.  Clarendon Press, Oxford.

A reference to my shark/fish cut/paste:
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack.  1991.  Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod.  Nature 352:234-236.

Alternatively, visit this link for a detailed list of references. Your assumption that I'm talking utta my arse is erroneous, but I should have provided references for you.

Now I must not disturb you anymore, as you have a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. And you'll understand what I mean when I say that speciation and so forth is buried deep within boring litterature.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by StSanta
I offer you the science explanation of the trouble with fossils in general. If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem. Evidence suggests that these transitional being existed only for a very short while (on the evolution scale) which further decreases the likelihood of finding transitional fossils. Then there is the human problem of sorting through all the stuff. You dismiss that too. It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative. To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.

Ok, I'll give you something to peruse at your leisure, as it seems I am unable to educate you about quite simple things like strata, fossils and the problems involved.

Here is an example of speciation (i.e the transition from one species to another) supported by paleontolic evidence. It's dry reading though (read it myself at the public library a couple of years ago).
Carroll, R.  1988.  Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution.  W.H.
Freeman & Co., New York. Chapter 22 for transitions.

Tetrapods are rather well documented, so that's a good source.
Benton, M.J. (ed.)  1988.  The Phylogeny and Classification of the
Tetrapods.  Clarendon Press, Oxford.

A reference to my shark/fish cut/paste:
Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack.  1991.  Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod.  Nature 352:234-236.

Alternatively, visit this link for a detailed list of references. Your assumption that I'm talking utta my arse is erroneous, but I should have provided references for you.

Now I must not disturb you anymore, as you have a lot of reading to do. Enjoy. And you'll understand what I mean when I say that speciation and so forth is buried deep within boring litterature.

What kind or debating technique is this santa? Since you seem so eager to point it out to others in various threads, I want you to tell me what stereotype of argumentation techniques this is:

If you're not capable of understanding why this represents problems with obtaining transitional fossils that IS a problem.

It seems you dismiss without knowing, which is a creationist approach - but that is your prerogative.

To suggest that there aren't any transitional fossils is just non educated nonsense though.

Basically here you are frustrated at me pointing out that there are no transitional fossils found. (hint: next time you want to debate about transitional fossils, it might be a wise idea to make sure that everyone involved in the discussion is using the same definition of certain key elements...such as "what constitutes a transitional fossil")

In short order you claim that:
I'm stupid because I do not understand why it is so hard for scientists to find transitional fossils.

I'm stupid because I dismiss (something) without knowing... (knowing what one might ask, are we talking about some objective truth here santa? I mean we both know how many of those there are...)    

Im stupid because Im suggesting that there are no transitional fossils.

Basically santa, this is the bully approach to debating. I know Im right and you are just stupid. I can prove that you are stupid too, the fact that you are disagreeing with me proves that you are either stupid, or you just doesnt know enough about the subject matter.

I really expected more from you.

But wait there's more. There is another "rethorical trick" in that post aswell...the good old "flood your opponent with irrelevant sources"-techique.

Lets take a look at the list of books santa encourages me to read before Im allowed to reply to his post.  

Ahlberg, P.E. 1991. Tetrapod or near-tetrapod fossils from the Upper Devonian of Scotland. Nature 354:298-301. Barnosky, A.D. 1987. Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism: some facts from the Quaternary mammalian record. Chapter 4, pp 109- 148, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. H.H. Genowys. Plenum Press, New York. Benton, M.J. (ed.) 1988. The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods. Clarendon Press, Oxford. [collection of papers. Good intro to current thinking on many intermediate fossils from various groups.] Benton, M.J. 1989. Patterns of evolution and extinction in vertebrates. Pp 218-241 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution. Unwin Hyman, London. Berta, A. 1994. What is a whale? Science 263:180-181. [commentary on discovery of Ambulocetus natans] Bolt, J.R., R.M. McKay, B.J. Witzke, & M.P. Adams. 1988. A new Lower Carboniferous tetrapod locality in Iowa. Nature 333:768-770 Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York. [general text. Only chapter 22 is concerned with species-level evolution and transitions; the other chapters generally describe only genera or families.] Chaline, J. 1983. Modalites, Rythmes, Mecanismes de L'Evolution Biologique: Gradualisme phyletique ou equilibres ponctues? Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. [collection of symposium papers, most in French with English abstracts provided, some in English.] Chaline, J., and B. Laurin. 1986. Phyletic gradualism in a European Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia). Paleobiology 12:203-216. Chevret, P., C. Denys, J.J. Jaeger, J. Michaux, and F. Catzeflis. 1993. Molecular and paleontological aspects of the tempo and mode of evolution in Otomys (Otomyinae: Muridae: Mammalia). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 21(1):123-131. Chuankuei-Li, R.W. Wilson, M.R. Dawson, and L. Krishtalka. 1987. The origin of rodents and lagomorphs. Chapter 3, pp. 97-108, in: Current Mammalogy, volume 1, ed. HH Genoways. Plenum Press, New York. Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1991. Fish-like gills and breathing in the earliest known tetrapod. Nature 352:234-236. Coates, M.I., & J.A. Clack. 1990. Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs. Nature 347:66-69. Colbert, E.H. & M. Morales. 1991. Evolution Of The Vertebrates: A History Of The Backboned Animals Through Time. Wiley-Liss, New York. [An accessible summary of large-scale trends in vertebrate history. Does not discuss species-level evolution at all, though.] Daeschler, E.B., N.H. Shubin, K.S. Thomson, W.W. Amaral. 1994. A Devonian tetrapod from North America. Science 265:639-642. Edwards, J.L. 1989. Two perspectives on the evolution of the tetrapod limb. Am. Zool. 29:235-254. Fahlbusch, V. 1983. Makroevolution. Punktualismus. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag am Beispiel miozaner Eomyiden (Mammalia, Rodentia). Palaont. Z. 57:213-230. [transitions among Miocene rodents.] Feduccia, A. 1980. The Age Of Birds. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Fischman, J. 1993. Paleontologists examine old bones and new interpretations. Science 262: 845-846. Futuyma, D.J. 1982. Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. Pantheon Books, New York. Futuyma, D.J. 1986. Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass. [standard text on theories of *how* evolution occurs; doesn't address evidence for evolution per se]. Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals. Am. J. Sci. 276:1-28. Gingerich, P.D. 1977. Patterns of evolution in the mammalian fossil record. In: Patterns Of Evolution As Illustrated By The Fossil Record (ed. A. Hallam), chapter 15, pp. 469-500. Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co. Gingerich, P.D. 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 8:407-424. Gingerich, P.D. 1982. Time resolution in mammalian evolution: Sampling, lineages, and faunal turnover. Third North Am. Paleont. Conv., Proc., 1:205-210. Gingerich, P.D. 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. J. Geological Education 31:140-144. Gingerich, P.D. 1985. Species in the fossil record: concepts, trends, and transitions. Paleobiology 11(1):27-41. Gingerich, P.D., B.H. Smith, & E.L. Simons. 1990. Hind limb of Eocene Basilosaurus: evidence of feet in whales. Science 249:154-156. Gould, S.J. 1983. Hen's Teeth And Horse's Toes. W.W. Norton, New York. [The title essay discusses evidence that some species retain old genes for traits that they no longer express -- teeth in chickens, side toes in horses. ] Gould, S.J. 1993. Eight Little Piggies. W.W. Norton, New York. [collection of essays. Title essay is about early amphibians.] Gould, S.J. 1994. Hooking Leviathon by its past. Natural History, May 1994. Harris, J., & White, T.D. 1979. Evolution of Plio-Pleistocene African Suidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 69:1-128. Hopson, J.A. 1991. Convergence in mammals, tritheledonts, and tridylodonts. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(suppl. to 3):36A [abstract] Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61. Hurzeler, J. 1962. Kann die biologische Evolution, wie sie sich in der Vergangengeit abgespielt hat, exakt erfasst werden? Stud. Kath. Akad. Bayern. 16:15-36. Kemp, T.S. 1982.

[Hortlund]

List continued:

Mammal-like reptiles and the origin of mammals. Academic Press, New York. Kermack, D.M. & Kermack, K.A. 1984. The evolution of mammalian characters. Croom Helm Kapitan Szabo Publishers, London. [this is a great little book; very clearly written, short, and well- illustrated.] Krishtalka, L., and Stucky, R.K. 1985. Revision of the Wind River Faunas. Early Eocene of Central Wyoming. Part 7. Revision of Diacodexis (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). Am. Carnegie Mus. 54:413-486. Kurten, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus (Phipps). Acta Zoologica Fennica 108:1-26. Kurten, B. 1968. Pleistocene Mammals of Europe. Aldine, Chicago. Kurten, B. 1976. The Cave Bear Story. Columbia University Press, New York. Laurin, M. 1991. The osteology of a Lower Permian eosuchian from Texas and a review of diapsid phylogeny. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 101:59-95. Lee, M.S.Y. 1993. The origin of the turtle bodyplan: bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261:1716-1720. Lucas, S.G., and Z. Lou. 1993. Adelobasileus from the upper Triassic of west Texas: the oldest mammal. J. Vert. Paleont. 13(3):309-334. Lundelius, E.L., T. Downs, E.H. Lindsay, H.A. Semken., R.J. Zakrzewski, C.S. Churcher, C.R. Harington, G.E. Schultz, and S.D. Webb. 1987. The North American Quaternary sequence. In: Cenozoic Mammals of North America - Geochronology and Biostratigraphy (ed. M.O. Woodburne). University of California Press, Berkeley. MacFadden, B.J. 1985. Patterns of phylogeny and rates of evolution in fossil horses: Hipparions from the Miocene and Pliocene of North America. Paleobiology 11:245-257. MacFadden, B.J. 1988. Horses, the fossil record, and evolution: a current perspective. Evol. Biol. 22:131-158. MacFadden, B.J., & R.C. Hubbert. 1988. Explosive speciation at the base of the adaptive radiation of Miocene grazing horses. Nature 336:466-468. (An interesting summary of the merychippine radiation. Has a nice horse tree, too. MacFadden's horse tree is used by almost everyone these days.) MacFadden, B.J., J.D. Bryant, and P.A. Mueller. 1991. Sr-isotopic, paleomagnetic, and biostratigraphic evidence of horse evolution: evidence from the Miocene of Florida. Geology 19:242-245. [This is an interesting example of the variety of dating methods paleontologists use to date their finds. MacFadden et al. dated the Parahippus --> Merychippus transition at a Florida site with paleomagnetic data and Sr/Sr dates, and also by cross-correlation to other sites dated with Sr/Sr, K/Ar, Ar/Ar, zircon fission-track, and paleomagnetic dating methods. All the dates were consistent at roughly 16 Ma.] Maglio, V.J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc., New Ser. 63:1-149. Martin, R.A., and A.D. Barnosky, eds. 1993. Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America. Cambridge University Press, New York. [collection of papers. Particulary useful: Goodwin on prairie dogs, Hulbert & Morgan on armadillos, Lister on mammoths and moose, Martin on rodents.] Milner, A.R., and S.E. Evans. 1991. The Upper Jurassic diapsid Lisboasaurus estesi -- a maniraptoran theropod. Paleontology 34:503-513. Prothero, D.R., & R.M. Schoch, eds. 1989. The Evolution of Perissodactyls. Clarendon Press, New York. [collection of papers] Rayner, M.J. 1989. Vertebrate flight and the origins of flying vertebrates. Pp. 188-217 in: Evolution and the Fossil Record, eds. K. Allen & D. Briggs. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1991. Owenetta and the origin of the turtles. Nature 349: 324-326. Reisz, R., & Laurin, M. 1993. The origin of turtles. J. Vert. Paleont. 13 (suppl. 3):46 [abstract] Rensberger, J.M. 1981. Evolution in a late Oligocene-early Miocene succession of meniscomyine rodents in the Deep River Formation, Montana. J. Vert. Paleont. 1(2): 185-209. Rose, K.D., and Bown, T.M. 1984. Gradual phyletic evolution at the generic level in early Eocene omomyid primates. Nature 309:250-252. Rowe, T. 1988. Definition, diagnosis, and origin of Mammalia. J. Vert. Paleont. 8(3): 241-264. Rougier, G.W., J.R. Wible, and J.A. Hopson. 1992. Reconstruction of the cranial vessels in the early Cretaceous mammal Vincelestes neuquenianus: implications for the evolution of the mammalian cranial vascular system. J. Vert. Paleont. 12(2):188-216. Sanz, J.L., Bonaparte, J.F., and A. Lacassa. 1988. Unusual Early Cretaceous birds from Spain. Nature 331:433-435. [This is about the Las Hoyas bird. ] Sanz, J.L and Bonaparte, J.F. 1992. A new order of birds (Class Aves) from the lower Cretaceous of Spain. in K.E.Campbell (ed.) Papers in Avian Paleontology. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series No.36 [Formal description of the Las Hoyas bird.] Sereno, P.C. and Rao, C. 1992. Early evolution of avian flight and perching: new evidence from the lower Cretaceous of China. Science vol.255, pp.845-848. Shubin, N.H., A.W. Crompton, H.-D. Sues, P.E. Olsen. 1991. New fossil evidence on the sister-group of mammals and early Mesozoic faunal distribution. Science 251:1063-1065. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Horses. Doubleday & Co., New York. [outdated but still the most accessible intro to horse evolution.] Szalay, F.S., M.J. Novacek, and M.C. McKenna. 1993. Mammal Phylogeny, vols 1 & 2. Springer-Verlag, New York. [a compilation of articles on different groups of mammals. Volume 1 covers early Mesozoic mammals, monotremes, and marsupials, volume 2 covers Cenozoic placentals. Excellent intro to the current state of knowledge of mammal relationships, though to get the most from it you should be familiar with current phylogenetic methodology and vertebrate morphology.] Thewissen, J.G.M., S.T. Hussain, and M. Arif. 1993. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263:210-212. Wellnhofer, P. 1993. Das siebte Exemplar von Archaeopteryx aus den Solnhofener Schichten. Archaeopteryx vol.11, pp. 1-47. [Description of the newest specimen of Archaeopteryx, with some more features that unite birds with dinosaurs. Summary and all figure legends are in English, the rest is in German.] Werdelin, L, and N Solounias. 1991. The Hyaenidae: taxonomy, systematics, and evolution. Fossils and Strata 30 (a monograph). Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. White, T.D., G. Suwa, and B. Asfaq. 1994. Australopithecus ramidus, a new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopida. Nature 371:306- 312. Wible, J.R. 1991. Origin of Mammalia: the craniodental evidence reexamined. J. Vert. Paleont. 11(1):1-28. Wood, B.A. 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature 371:280-281. [commentary on Australopithecus ramidus] MAGAZINE ARTICLES by unknown authors: Science News 133:102. "Bird fossil reveals history of flight". Science News 145(3):36. "Fossil Whale Feet: A Step in Evolution" [Ambulocetus natans & other recent whale discoveries] Science News 140:104-105. 1991. "The Lonely Bird." [summary of the Protoavis controversy.] Science News 138:246-247. 1990. "Chinese bird fossil: mix of old and new". Discover, (month?) 1991. Article on Protoavis. Discover, January 1995. "Back to the Sea". Brief description of recent fossil whale discoveries, with a nice full-color painting depicting evolution to the sea (showing a mesonychid on land, Ambulocetus at the shoreline, the legged Eocene whale Rodhocetus in shallow water, and the later vestigial-legged whale Prozeuglodon in deep water.) Discover, February 1995, p. 22 "Wabbit or Wodent?" Brief description, with photo, of a probably rodent/lagomorph ancestor.

[Hortlund]

You then imply that you know more on this subject than me by giving some fuzzy reference to some book you read in a library some years ago...well, Im sorry Santa, I have no idea what kind of people you usually argue with, but this just doesnt cut it.


Now I'm going to make a couple of statements santa, and then maybe you could try to answer to them instead of accusing me of being an idiot.

Statement

There are currently three theories on how macroevolution occurs:

The theories are:
Punctuated equilibrium theory
proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence.

Phyletic gradualism
suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history.

Species selection and species sorting theories
claim that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.

Do you agree to my statement and is it your opinion that my description of the current theories are correct?

If you agree to the statement, what is your opinion on the relationship between these three theories? Can they all be right at the same time?

[StSanta]

Hortlund, there's no way out of it for you. Refusing to accept my references is just not good enough. You asked for them, I provided. Now you gotta accept the facts.

You then imply that you know more on this subject than me by giving some fuzzy reference to some book you read in a library some years ago...well, Im sorry Santa, I have no idea what kind of people you usually argue with, but this just doesnt cut it.

If you cannot accept why fossilization is sort of tricky even when I have explained it to you, am I to think that you know more of the subject than me? Rather, you disregarded everything I wrote because it didn't fit with your views.

Now I'm going to make a couple of statements santa, and then maybe you could try to answer to them instead of accusing me of being an idiot.

I'm not accusing you of being an idiot. I am saying that some of your statements are nonsensical. Even geniuses make nonsensical statements. So I am attacking the statement, not you personally. Sorry if I came across as such.

There are currently three theories on how macroevolution occurs:

The theories are:
Punctuated equilibrium theory
proposes that once species have originated, and adapted to the new ecological niches in which they find themselves, they tend to stay pretty much as they are for the rest of their existence.

Ah yes, you're inferring to the alleged 'split' in the world of biology; two great opposing 'sciences'. I'll refer to Dawkins:

'There is a highly advertized school of thoughts amongst evolutionary biologists whose proponents call themselves punctuationists, and they did invent the term 'gradualist' for their most influential predecessors. They have enjoyed enormous publicity, among a public that knows almost nothing else about evolution, and this is largely because their position has been represented, by secondary reporters more than themselves, as radically different from previous evolutionists, most notably Charles Darwin'.

He goes on about the misrepresentation of the word 'gradual'. The press has likened gradual with a continuous, steady advance - in fact they've defined it as such. Obviously, 'gradual' incorporates much more than that and to be fair one must use the word as it was used ty the original sources.

Explaining punctuated equilibrium and why it really is a 'gradual' process and not saltation will require a lengthy post on my behalf. There are so many misconceptions that I'll have to deal with them first to get to my point. So bear with me for posting stuff that at first doesn't seem relevant. It'll take a while to write and properly research, so will post a quickie version in a few hours. Don't think this is a cop-out - it's just that what you're asking for is a big subject and as such takes time to accurately present. I might post in a new topic as it is a whole new, separate debate.

So hold on to your hat - an answer is forthcoming.

[Naso]

Hortlund,

I still fail to see a single prove, provided by you, that creationism theory it's scientifically correct.

You are stirring this thread to a new lenght record, but still fail to bring a single positive and constructive contribute to the discussion.

Again (as I asked long time ago),

What's your point?