Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

The intellectuals had it all figured out in the days of Jesus.

As is your norm, you've misunderstood Gould. When a paleontologist or an evolutionary biologist uses the phrase "sudden alteration" or "sudden speciation," they don't mean "sudden" in terms of a historical time frame, but in a geological time frame, i.e., "sudden" compared to what was believed previously by paleontologists and evolutionary biologists.

The early prevailing theories were that change is a gradual and steady state, without significant pauses in the process, but Gould proposed that, per species, there were long periods of relative stability, punctuated by "sudden" changes here and there, in response to the "sudden" appearance of environmental stressors. Again, "sudden" being relative to geological scales of time, not historical scales of time. To you and me, that's still extremely gradual, on the scale of millions of years for a slight alteration to be observable. In other words, even a "sudden" change on this scale would be not measurable by you even if you were born fifty-thousand years ago, and have been watching carefully till today.

And why did he invent this concept? HE didn't. Goldsmith came up with it about twenty year prior. Some called it the hopefull monster mechinism. The idea was a turtle laid an egg and a bird was hatched.

But why was this theory necessary? Because both scientists realized there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

So what we have is evolution happend too fast in the past to leave a record and it happens to slowly in the present to observe. Very convinent.

Some called it the hopefull monster mechinism. The idea was a turtle laid an egg and a bird was hatched.

But why was this theory necessary? Because both scientists realized there are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

So what we have is evolution happend too fast in the past to leave a record and it happens to slowly in the present to observe. Very convinent.

now tell me how 2000 years ago He predicted the Jews getting their homeland, Sharon and Gaza, Blacks throwing off their yoke, the ^ day war where Israel was flighted to safety as if by the wings of an eagle, Israels enemies would break treaties to push them into the sea, we would build weapons that would burn for 2000 years, our overseers would have weapons to control us that would sting like a scorpion but not kill, etc. You believe in your brain. I'll believe in it's Creator.

Thanks for the correction. I have had trouble spelling at least since the fourth grade.

I read his book and was fasinated by it. I especially liked the part about him saying the accumulation of mutations in humans matches the exponintial decare rate of humans' life spans from about 900 down to about 100 year life expectancy.

The idea that he is no longer respected is just like when I used to come up with ideas in rotory cutter head building. At the time the owner of a nationally known company told me that it was not posible. And then low and behold a few month later he comes out with a news release in the industry with my idea. being right is not always popular at the time.

It was a stroke of luck when they wrapped the seemingly dead Jesus in a death shroud that once held moldy oranges. The huge dose of penicillin from the shroud beat down the infection from the grievous wounds Jesus got from the rusty nails and and multiple spear jabs to the gut. Three day later, Jesus was able to get up and go look for some Easter breakfast.

Took 1,928 years after for an intellectual to figure that out.

My fiction is more factual than yours.

For those who have no idea what we are posting aobut I decided to look up his book on Amazon.com and get a tiny bit of information about his book. I bolded a couple points.


Dr. John Sanford, a retired Cornell Professor, shows in
Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome that the "Primary Axiom" is false. The Primary Axiom is the foundational evolutionary premise - that life is merely the result of mutations and natural selection. In addition to showing compelling theoretical evidence that whole genomes can not evolve upward, Dr. Sanford presents strong evidence that higher genomes must in fact degenerate over time. This book strongly refutes the Darwinian concept that man is just the result of a random and pointless natural process.

Ya know, you are a much bigger azzhole than I imagined.

I am sure that you have read some of the critics of his book, yes? If you took the 10 minutes to even scimm Kimoras original paper you know that John Stanford, either didn't understand (very unlikely considering his background) or willfully misrepresented the core data he quoted. his whole arguement about the frequency of benficial mutations is wrong, and was proved wrong in the paper John began began by quoting.

John Stanford's book can only be considered as purposeful piece of disinformation

Only by those who refuse to see the truth that mutations go the wrong way for evoluton to work.

If a turtle laid an egg that hatched a bird, what did the bird breed with. I doubt the turtle could catch a bird to mate, and if so, the bird would be ate.

Only by those who refuse to see the truth that mutations go the wrong way for evoluton to work.

Who said a turtle hatched a bird? No one except an idiot would say that an certainly no evolutionary biologist ever did. Why do you keep making up nonsense?

Isn't that what Gould or Goldsmith postulated? Regardless, if I came from an ape, I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.