AGAIN!
Sir! I took biology classes in college and read biology textbooks sall the time. They are poart of my personal library.
Really?
I am indeed surprised.
So your typical assumption that people who don't accept your fish ancestor as true is totally unfounded. Actually it constitutes fallacious reasoning. Hasty conclusion based on insufficient evidence motivated by prejudice.
No, no it does not.
It is my personal experience that evolution denialists are only familiar with the Creationists' strawman of it.
Polls tell us that the acceptance of Evolution correlates with education; the percentage of trained biological scientists that accept evolution is significantly higher (99.9%) than the percentage within the general population.
So, no, it's not a fallacious argument, it's a very reasonable and well supported assumption.
Of course, you might be the rare exception to the rule that I am sure exists somewhere.
BTW
I don't like to be wrongfully accused or falsly described or categorized by people who are more than likely less educated than me and don't even know how to reason properly.
And yet...
You place great value on seeing now. Yet without seeing transitional forms in the rvolution record
Except that every species is either transitional or going extinct. In fact, the fossil record is chock full of species that are clearly transitional between two surrounding specimen.
you accept it as fact. No demand to see there. Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium, or rapid evolutionary changes you accept. But of course not rapid enough to account for post flood speciation. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?
Ponctuated equilibrium = Rapid evolution over tenth of thousands of years rather than millions.
Flood creationism apologetic = Rapid evolution over hundreds of years.
There is at least a factor 100 between the two, so, no, nothing inconsistent.
Show me a socketless skull. Then show me, via fossils, the gradual depressions as the skull developes sockets over millions of years. Then show me transitional forms of the skull as it gradually developes eyes.
You DO realize the ossification and skulls did evolve LONG after the eyes; right?
Explain to me in detail via those discovered fopssils just how each eye part developed and what the area called the occipetal lobe was doing in the meantime and why.
YOu mean, something like
that?
What were these different eye parts doing for millions of years before they unanimously AGREED to hook up as a finely coordinated team in order to make visioin possible? After all, one part would be useless for vision without the others. So what benefit was the supposed or mythical blind creature deriving from lugging around a partially developed optic nerve? Sho ing me the fossils of these transitory stages shouldn't be hard since there werre supposed to be millions of them.
Eye spot works fine on its own.
Other part evolved or where coopted later. That's actually a
pretty discredited argument.
But snce you can't, then you invent punctuated equilibrium. It's a sort of a game-isn't it?
Ooooh... Now I see it. You don't know what punctuated equilibrium is!
You believe that it is some sort of super-jumped up evolution that scientists use to justify fast forward evolution which did not leave a fossil record (a bit like the post-deluvian super-evolution creationists made up).
It's not the case. "Punctuated equilibrium" refers to changing rate of evolution, but it's still evolution, with the same mechanism and the same evidences in the fossil record.
Perhaps for the same reason that I don't see your punctuated equilibrium sprrouting new speciies all over the place today? Your question is applicable to your evolution idea. Yet it doesn't faze you one bit. But you want it to faze me? Strange!
But... We do see evolution spouting
new species (punctuated equilibrium is about rate of evolution, it is not a mechanism on itself, BTW) all over the place.
You see, I was almost going to apologize if my (not matter how justified) assumptions offended you.
Now, I won't.
Clearly, you have no idea of what you are talking about.
You might have taken a class in biology, but it must have been at Liberty University (or, maybe, a very basic one, given a long time ago), you might have read textbooks, but it must have been Creationist ones. At least, you never actually LEARNED much about them.
Or you were lying through your teeth when you pretended to have taken this class. After all, you pretended not to know where the term 'Intelligent Designer' came from, and yet, you seem well versed in the creationists arguments and quote their websites quite extensively.
