You have not shown I have misrepresented anyone. I’ve supplied my quotes.
Just because you claim I’m wrong, does not mean I am wrong.
The above is Bechly clearly clarifying as to why Gould and Eldredge concocted PE.
It was because they found there was a lack of transitional fossils.
And as I’ve said, Patterson said the same thing. And Dawkins even commented as to the sudden appearance of life from the Cambrian explosion.
Now, I’ll tell you what, supply pictures of that you think are the transitional fossils for any one evolutionary event. You pick them.
But, remember they need to be pictures of the actual fossils, from generations of the organism, over millions of years, as its descendants went from tit to tat, and you have an actual evolved lifeform.
Evidence is never irrelevant. It either defends what is in question or not.
There is no argument here. I’ve supplied the quotes from the person. They are clear. There are others who have stipulated the same as what he quoted
You have no leg to stand on.
That, he may have backtracked is only calling all of what he said into question. And for this we yield to others who have stated the same sentiments, in other quotes.
And there are a lot of them.
And again you fail to produce evidence. Stop wasting time. If you have evidence showing universal common descent is sound scientifically, please do so.
What quotes? Please stop just linking to long videos. What did Bechly say? At what point in the video, exactly, did he say that? Try not to waste my time. Incidentally, I don’t think Bechly understands evolution very well.
Come on. Don’t tell me you are just going to take my word for it, now?
If you are not going to view the evidence you are wasting my time. You can’t defend that which you have not become familiar with. Do so, or don’t bother replying.
No, we aren’t going to just take your word for it, then we wouldn’t have to watch any part of the video at all. If we just took your word for it there’d be no reason for us to demand a timestamp for specific claims. Such as Bechly’s supposed denial of common descent, which you have still not provided anywhere.
Try to keep up please. So say where exactly Bechly denies common descent.
I want to return to this point. Could you explain, in your own words, why scientists would think a phylogenetic tree is evidence for the bacterial ancestry of mitochondria? You call it “a speculation”, but scientists disagree that it’s just a speculation. How does the logic of phylogenetic inference work? Can you state that in your own words?
And I have supplied the actual quotes. Please tell me what they are saying.
It is obvious that he has backtracked. The reason being was because of the heat he was incurring from fellow evolutionists.
Patterson had experienced the same heat, but finally admitted that he had been deceived by evolution
"During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:
‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation… ‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:
‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6
Source: That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
I’ll let the quotes speak for themselves. You can place yours if you want. Let’s see what readers come away with.
This bears no resemblance to the Colin Patterson I met. Or to the Field Museum I know, or to the Evolutionary Morphology Seminars at the U. of Chicago I’ve been to. Now I didn’t meet Patterson until 5 years after this claimed event, or work at the Field Museum or go to Ev Morph until 10 years after it. But I can’t see how everything would have changed that much in 10 years. Something is awry somewhere.
You have to wonder a bit about how that story is possible. He’s supposedly speaking to geologists in a museum of natural history, and nobody knows how to give an answer to that question? He claims he was met with silence.
I suppose that’s possible only in so far as his colleagues might have been stunned into silence that a man of his education would ask such a fatuous question?
Here’s two possible answers anyone with just a bit of knowledge could have responded with that should be fairly uncontroversial:
Natural selection is one among several mechanisms of evolutionary change.
Or how about,
Evolution is a population-level and transgenerational phenomenon.
Even creationists who purport to accept things such as microevolution could agree to those statements.
You are hypothesizing. And doing so while forgetting the fact that one of those in the audience did respond. But, not in favor of universal common descent.
He said this.
" “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” .’6"
Source: That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
"A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called “microraptor,” in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a “glider” that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.
““We’re finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with,” Ruben said. “This issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that.””
Source: Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around? -- ScienceDaily
Oh, yes, universal common ancestry is fighting a war on a number of different fronts.
And, this only reveals what scientists have always known. Science is always updating.
The question is why evolutionists are holding so tightly to their pet speculation they refuse to allow what they believe to catch up with other scientists are discovering, that contradicts what they believe.
Natural selection is a mechanism of evolutionary change.
Evolution is a population level and transgenerational phenomenon.
Weird that an entire group of geologists at a natural history museum purportedly could not provide such a simple and obvious set of answers. Genuinely weird. Reasonable people have to wonder if the claimed events even occurred, so silly is the story.
All he does is provide links to videos and websites. He doesn’t link to actual datasets. He doesn’t know he is on the wrong forum. I am really glad I got out of this brand of creationism because the extent to which it has eroded his critical thinking faculties is alarming.
Ouch, how evolutionists love to use terms so loosely. You stated no facts. The research papers of the evolutionists on universal common descent, is as much based upon unsubstantiation facts as is that flat earth theory.
Maybe even more.
What ever research you care to submit, please they are digging up data that they then interpret to mean one thing or another.
For example they claim chimps and humans have similarities in the DNA.
This is of course true.
But, does it mean we share DNA from a common ancestor. Again not on your life.
They have DNA. It’s a fact. Don’t bother looking at it. And we have DNA. Again it’s a fact.
But, that we share a common ancestor, THAT’S NOT A FACT.
You, they or anyone can go back and grab a sample of DNA. In fact, the evolutionists can’t even identifying, what that would be mythical common ancestor was. (why we are even debating this, is nonsensical).
They have not evidence for a common ancestor.
What we do have are thousands of years where humans gave birth to humans. Apes have been known to give birth to apes, AND, AND, AND. (ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION, YET).
And, all of the other kinds of lifeforms are all reproducing those OF THEIR OWN KIND. Also.
This is the known pattern. There has been no other that anyone has observed.
So, it is a no brainer, that scientist around the world should reject common ancestry of man and ape.
And that would mean that the universal common ancestors is as good as dead in the water as well.
