Bechly on the human fossil record and anagenesis

Lol he says:
“It is not intelligent design theorists who are the science deniers, but rather all those stubborn Darwinists. The latter still close their eyes to the ever-increasing number of anomalies that their pet theory fails to explain.”

Then a few sentences later he completely contradicts himself:
“Everything that is really interesting in the history of life and that should be explained by Darwin’s theory, this very theory actually fails to explain, by the admission of modern evolutionary biologists themselves.”

Lol geez

It’s all down to a confusion of time scales and spatial scales too. Selection coefficients too small to measure in the wild or in a laboratory population can produce change many times faster than could be observed in a grainy fossil record. And if times of major change are episodic and brief (in geological terms), we should rarely see them happening, even if we have many samples of locally perfect records over some thousands of years. The fossil record reflects poor geographic and temporal sampling, and not just due to lack of effort. Like Darwin says, many pages of the book are missing, and many are found only in a few places, while much more happens off the page.

1 Like

I am copying and keeping this paragraph. What a class act !

I can’t tell if that was intended ironically.

The source material is pretty good, too.

@John_Harshman how would you define the terms anagenesis and cladogenesis? I’m seeing a lot of varying definitions and even a paper calling for an end of the terms. So I’m curious how you would define them and their processes

1 Like

So which way is it? Does the fossil record support evolution or does it not?

(Please…never, ever, ever misconstrue any comment I make as any kind of support for your evolutionary paradigm. Please. Never.)

What are you on about?

Alright. So you vote that I exit the forum. Good. Let’s take a vote. If I get enough votes in favor of me exiting, I will do so. How about 5. Just 5 votes, and I will exit. All I need is 4 more.

You are making zero sense.

You don’t get two votes (just because you have opposed me most I mean).

Alright, so @John_Harshman posts this

…and it is only natural to ask the question. So which is it? Does the fossil record support evolution or does it not?

Yes, it does. Having a specimen from every generation of every lineage is not necessary to establish the evolutionary branching history of life. The fossil samples we do have provide enough information, especially when combined with our knowledge of genetic phylogenies.

That is your answer. Now I am asking @John_Harshman because he seemed to say, “No, it really does not support evolution, but here’s why and that is ok.”

That’s not what he said or meant by describing the incompleteness of the fossil record.

Oh? Sure sounded like it. Where is he?

Not to those who actually read what the words said and not what they wanted them to say.

1 Like

Why do you keep talking? Where is @John_Harshman

This is a discussion board. If all you want to do is preach you should go elsewhere.

1 Like

Amazing. I wonder if you are one of those who always has to have the last word in any discussion you think you have won.