DesignedUniverse -> Vade Retro, An Idiot who STILL Doesn't Get It

Vade Retro, An Idiot who STILL Doesn't Get It, There are NO Transitional forms!!!!

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Coral Snake

Posted: May 31 2004, 09:46 PM

Specialist

Group: Specialist
Posts: 138
Member No.: 20
Joined: 19-May 04

QUOTE

To: Ahban

[Me, up the page:] Well, we have seen changes in familiar animals through historical times.

Furthermore, we see the corresponding thing, competing taxonomic schemes. Should birds be grouped within reptiles? Should all mammals and the mammal-like reptiles be lumped in a super-taxon "Synapsida?" Is there a (paraphyletic) taxon "Fissipedia?" (Land carnivores with separate toes, versus the flippers of pinnipeds.)

There are disagreements. There exist conflicting taxonomic trees on these and many other questions. The lines Linnaeaus drew have indeed refused to remain static.

This is all, given what evolution actually does, we can ever expect to see. The achingly slow (in terms of a single human life) changes in the subject matter under study have been dwarfed by those changes which have resulted from simply gathering more and more data, but that too is as it should be. We see reasonable evidence of changes over time in the life forms and of flexibility in the taxonomy.

What should we be seeing now that we don't? Your whole question assumes that there's some sort of new-family zap thing we should have noticed and haven't. Evolution doesn't like sudden zaps. That's just another example of how creationists impose a creationist filter on a plodding, gradual model and then argue how silly the sudden zap is.

You have done exactly the same thing as when creationists compute the odds of the "naturalistic origin" of a (pick as many as you like): primitive self-replicator, DNA molecule, cell, etc. It has to zap together, fully working, out of atoms or whatever. Very improbable indeed, but that's the creation model!

217 posted on 05/30/2004 7:45:39 AM PDT by VadeRetro

I wonder if this VadeRetro is the same dimbulb as RetroSpector at Creation/Evolution. He STILL does NOT seem to get that it is his evo theory that requires gradualism and large numbers of transitional forms that DO NOT EXIST in either living or fossil form. It is CREATIONISM that allows for the instantanious appearance of an organism in the fossil record (creation in a single Genesis day) which is what we see in that record UNIVERSALLY.

Charity	Posted: May 31 2004, 10:37 PM
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 314 Member No.: 4 Joined: 14-February 04	I'm bettin Vadey and retrospector are the same.

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | EvoLOONacy | Next Newest »