Equally amazing. I wonder if you’ve ever listened to anything but the sound of your own voice when having a “discussion”.
This is great. You are one of those. In the flesh. You can’t help yourself.
This is not so great. All you ever hear is the sound of your own voice. You can help yourself, but you won’t.
I am truly laughing out loud…!!!
When you want to stop preaching and have an actual discussion, let us know.
Well, here’s what great for you. When one of us gets in trouble for this it will doubtless be me.
Only if that was your goal. It’s an easy way to exit a discussion on a topic you seem to have no interest in anyway.
No, I think I will stay on.
I vote you stay.
Why are you feeling unwelcome?
Well right now I was feeling pretty well and having a little fun. I was really just waiting on a response from @John_Harshman when all the fun started.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Cladogenesis is just what it says: the origin of clades or the splitting of lineages. It’s synonymous with speciation as neontologists understand the latter term. Anagenesis is “speciation” without branching, through change in a singe lineage; i.e., no speciation. As for processes, I’d say they’re nearly orthogonal. Speciation commonly happens through the evolution of reproductive isolation, as a byproduct of selection on some feature of organisms in geographically isolated populations. Evolutionary change in populations happens through the ordinary processes of mutation, selection, and drift.
It does. If you think what I said would work as an argument against evolution, you have grossly misread it.
So, in other words, you refuse even to consider any evidence or argument that goes against your preconceived notion. That’s a complete rejection of science. Are you aware of that?
So we should see no temporal overlap between ancestor and descendant on anagenesis correct?
That would certainly be the case if it were possible to recognize ancestors and descendants in the fossil record. If.
Did anybody ask you to leave? If they did, I must have missed it.
Oh my no, I totally disagree. My interpretation of the evidence is just as much science as your interpretation. Maybe better science in fact.
I don’t think so. I like it just the way you wrote it. A long string of excuses why your paradigm is not rattled and shaken even if the fossil record in your favor is scant. I have saved it. It’s a classic.
Scant doesn’t mean non-existent. We still have plenty of fossils to clearly identify the evolutionary branching nested hierarchical patterns over deep time.
Honest people don’t ignore the scientific evidence just because it contradicts their preconceived beliefs.
No, what invalidates your ideas as science is that you are not willing to question them, no matter what.
Who is better equipped to judge what I meant: me or you? Nothing I said is outside mainstream science.
Now, when will you support any of your contentions? I am particularly interested in understanding how it’s possible for every radiometric date to be due to contamination. What sort of contamination is this? How did it get there? Why is it so consistent among methods and with fossils?
I misspoke in my efforts to be a wee bit accommodating. What I really believe is that you do not even possess scant evidence.