ALTER2EGO:

You are being conned by evolutionist lingo that these scientists use, and you seem like a willing victim. These are trick-phrases. Not only does Raup admit there aren't enough "intermediaries," he uses the deceptive phrase: "There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another," to give the impression that he has proof that the animals actually evolved from what they started off as. He then goes on to talk about "natural selection." The term "natural selection" should have been your clue that Raup is talking about variations of the exact same animal. As stated by one source:

"Natural selection is the primary mechanism within the scientific theory of evolution, i.e. it alters the frequency of alleles within a population."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Natural_selection

The same source defines "a population" as follows:

"In the most common sense of the word, a population is the collection of people—or organisms of a particular species—living in a given geographic area."
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Population

In other words, Raup is talking about variations of the same "species" that is able to interbreed (microevolution). He is not talking about macroevolution (a squirrel changing into a bat or a whale turns into a bear).


Remember, Raup also admitted there are nothing but gaps in the fossils. Without the existence of bones showing where one type of animal "species" left off and another started, everything that these scientist spout is their personal opinions.

Another trick used by scientists in the pro-evolution community is to use the word "species" interchangeably with the word "variation"—when speaking about the exact same type of animal. Below is another example of David Raup talking about species transitions in horses aka variation of animals in the horse family, such as zebra and horse.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic." (Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 25)

Notice my bolded words. Raup used "evolutionary transitions" aka "species transitions" with reference to variations of horses. He wasn't referring to horses changing into an entirely different creature. He was speaking of microevolution, which amounts to nothing more than variation within the same species (such as between a fox and a wolf or between a horse and a zebra). Macroevolution—which is the topic of this thread—is not what Raup is discussing when he speaks of intermediates. Macroevolution involves higher classifications such as is seen between orders, families, or classes of creatures (transition between reptiles and mammals etc.).

ALTER2EGO -to- DEUCE KICKER:

Notice the parts of your "complete" quotes that I highlighted in bold and red and you will realize that the full quote supports the excerpted portion that I used. You will also note from the red-highlighted words that these people are speculating and merely giving their opinions and exposing their dishonest science. Gould comes right out and says: " we proposed," which is another way of saying "we speculate aka opine." He didn't say "we know." He said "we propose." Every word that he states after "we propose" are part of what they are proposing aka speculating.

Look at the second red-highlighted phrase: "the gaps are closing." Did they say they closed the gaps in the fossils and that they found bones that link up, for example, a squirrel with a bat or a whale with a bear? No. They're giving their usual spin about "we're almost there." More than 150 years after Charles Darwin published Origin of Species, they're still "almost there." That's what people do when they're being dishonest and don't have real hard evidence. They beat around the bush.

Finally, look at the third red-highlighted phrase: "the adoption of new techniques both in fossil morphology and in fossil MANIPULATION." That's right! They will manipulate what fossils they have so they can get the preconceived results they insist on getting from what isn't there.

I need not elaborate on the fourth red-highlighted phrases as it speaks for itself.

Think of it. According to macroevolution theory, every single living creature that has ever existed came from one ancestor. In other words, this would have had to be a commonplace occurrence. Yet, for this supposedly commonplace occurrence of animals changing into different creatures, there's not one single bone to be found to link them up. All we keep hearing is GAPS IN THE FOSSILS RECORDS.

If these scientists had evidence to support the macroevolution myth, do you suppose they would spend so much time speculating and using trick phrases like "species transitions" to talk about variations of the exact same animal? And if macroevolution were a reality, why is the word evolution forever chained to the word THEORY? (Those are rhetorical questions, by the way.)

people are being dishonest by stating that there are gaps in the data and proposing models?

would they be more honest if rather than saying "we propose", they instead dismissed alternative interpretations and ignored gaps in the data and claimed "we know for a fact"?

i admit, i'm speculating since i know nothing of george neville and i'm going to go through the trouble of reading the book.

by "manipulation" he could just mean working with it to get the information from it. not change the information there. assembling a skeleton or extracting a piece for testing maybe?

if molecular biologist in the 21st century said that, i'd assume he'd meant doing things to the fossil to get DNA to sequence, and not trying to make a story that wasn't there.

I'm going to say some things to you that are going to come off as very harsh, but I hope you'll believe me when I say I don't mean to be offensive. I used to be in your situation; arguing for creationism against godless atheists. But here's the problem: Your scientific knowledge is close to that of an 8th grader, maybe lower. You think you know a lot about science, but you don't. It's not your fault. You were probably born into your religion (almost all JWs are) and you've just never been exposed to other information.

This is not me getting into a pissing match with you; it's just me being real--You are not in a position to tell anyone that they're being conned by evolutionists. You don't read what evolutionists say, you read what your leaders tell you the evolutionists say. Your misunderstandings of basic facts and scientific terms is evidence of this.


You have to give up this notion that tens of thousands of scientists worldwide over the past 200 years are all in on this plot, playing canny games with words to win arguments in underhanded ways. Scientists are precise. They usually let you know what their terms mean—especially if they're using it in a non-standard way.

When Raup says there aren't enough intermediaries, he tells you exactly what he means: There aren't enough intermediaries to support a slow, gradual transition from one species to another. He's not saying there aren't enough to support evolution at all. This is the way you tried to present it when you quoted it, but you were wrong. After seeing the context, where it is spelled out a number of times that he's talking about gradualism, you just switched gears without acknowledging that you were wrong about the context.

Again, sorry, but you're not in a position to tell anybody what Raup is saying.

Raup states very clearly that the intermediaries he feels are missing are those from species to species. He says it in plain English. You have no reason whatsoever to interpret it as variation within the species. None at all. This will be very hard for you to accept, but you're talking to a bunch of people who know more about this subject than you do. I know that is difficult for a JW to accept, because you've always been told that you have The Truth, but it's true. Reading your book, Life, How Did it Get Here, by Evolution or Creation? does not equip you. Even in creationist circles, by people who agree with you, that book is laughed at.

No, you are the only one using the words interchangeably. If you're going to say things like this, you need to be able to back it up. Provide the sentence where he used the word "species." Provide the sentence where he used the word "variation." Show how they are being used interchangeably.

Read the actual article, and the books he and others have written about this (he's referencing Origin of Species). He is not talking about variation within the “horse family.” He's talking about the transitions from eohippus to equus over a period of 55 million years. As more fossils were uncovered and more was learned, the geneology of the modern horse was modified. This is what he's talking about. This quote has nothing at all to do with simple variations among horses.

I don't have time to go through this point-by-point, but I'm going to build a little on what I said last post—though you've heard it already by others.

Imagine if I went to your Kingdom Hall for the upcoming Memorial. Imagine I walk in and tell everyone I'm one of the anointed (one of the 144,000 from Revelation that will rule in heaven with Christ for 1,000 years). I pull out a dictionary and read the definition of anointed: “to consecrate or make sacred in a ceremony that includes the token applying of oil; to dedicate to the service of God.” You look closely and see that my forehead looks a little shiny, like it's still got a little oil on it.

Now one of the men comes to me and says that's not what anointed means in your religion. I get loud and say, “But it's in the dictionary! I'm one of the anointed!”

You'd have a good chuckle about it the next day, but nobody for a second would take me seriously, because I can't even speak the JW language.

That's you and science. Your last sentence says it all. Even though it's been pointed out to you, you still don't understand what a scientific theory is. You are using the common, non-scientific definition that makes it equivalent to a wild guess. That's not what a scientific theory is at all.

You don't start with a hunch, then when you have a little more evidence it's a guess, then with a little more evidence it's a theory, then finally, when the evidence is indisputable, it becomes a scientific fact. In science, a theory never graduates to fact, or law. A scientific theory will always be a scientific theory.

Ask yourself this question (and this is not rhetorical; I want you to see if you can come up with the answer): Why is the word gravity forever chained to the word theory?

Now, you can look up the word "theory" in a dictionary and, realizing that your everyday layperson's definition is not correct in a scientific setting, you choose the one that looks 'sciency'. But don't just come back pasting definitions, like you understood all along. Your use of the word is incorrect. Try to really understand what you're reading, instead of looking for the first word you can disagree with to make yourself look right.

ALTER2EGO -to- DEUCE KICKER:
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. That's why when you read their papers they are unable to use definitive words. Instead, they use words such as the ones highlighted in red from your previous quote, copied below.

ALTER2EGO:
So since the man admitted there aren't enough intermediaries to support it, this sets you right back to where you started and what I've been saying throughout this thread: There's no fossil evidence for macroevolution.

Raup isn't going to come right out and debunk his own theory. Like his other pals, he uses trick-phrases that are apparently above the head of most laypersons. Some people are so impressed with made up words such as "gradualism" and "species transition" and "punctuated equilibrium" and "intermediaries"—terminologies that were created by pro-evolution scientists for the sole purpose of impressing the gullible--that they willingly allow themselves to be convinced that a theory is fact. Nobody is willing to accept that if these scientists had evidence of macroevolution, the word THEORY would have disappeared from the text. But that's not the case. The words "macroevolution" and "theory" are SIAMESE TWINS.

ALTER2EGO:
I've been debunking macroevolution THEORY with info from several sources—including the book Life: How Did It Get Here-By Evolution or Creation? If anybody's laughing, it certainly isn't any of the atheist/evolutionists in this thread who have thus far been unable to overcome the scientific quotations referring to gaps in the fossils record.

Moving along, let me address your next quote. I will do so in a separate post.

ALTER2EGO:
I gave you the example of David Raup talking about variations of horses by him using the term "evolutionary transition"--which is used elsewhere with reference to "species to species transition." Here's the quotation again. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

Notice my bolded words in Raup's quotation above. Raup used "evolutionary transitions" aka "species transitions" with reference to variations of horses. According to your argument, the term "species transitions" is with reference to one type or "species" of animal supposedly transitioning into an entirely different creature (macroevolution). Yet, Raup used it with reference to variations of horses (microevolution).

Like most pro-evolution laypersons, you seem to think that the word "species" is confined only to specific families of animals. For instance, all variations of dogs are classified as a single species depending on whom one speaks to. The same scientists in the pro-evolution community that define dogs as a single species will use the word "species" for each of 35,000 variations of fish by referring to the fish as "35,000 species of fish."

Their argument is that the fish cannot interbreed so they are different species. How would they know that? Did they test all 35,000 variations of fish to see which ones could or could not interbreed? (And that's a rhetorical question.) So they refer to 35,000 different variations of FISH as 35,000 different species, despite the fact that different "species" of fish can most certainly interbreed, as noted by the article in the weblink below.
http://www.theaquariumwiki.com/Hybrid_Fish

Not only is that a perfect example of scientists using the word "variation" and "species" interchangeably with fish, but by describing each variation of fish as a different species, this makes it easier for laypersons to be fooled into thinking the fish are evolving into a different type of creature when some scientist speaks of "species transitions of fish."

Truth be told, pro-evolution scientists change the meaning of the word "species" whenever it suits their purposes, as confirmed by biologist John Endler who wrote:

"Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin,1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species.""

Deuckekicker is owning this thread in a big way.

+1, Zen like patience too.

The amount of fail here boggles my mind.

People still haven't put OP on ignore?

He's obviously not here to learn.

Actually this book by Dawkins is a joke, and it's not up-to-date.

Relative to the Bible?

don't even bother... he is another Dawkins and evolution theory hater...