"Reading the entire statement, and accepting 19th Century English jargon implies that Darwin wasn't the racist you make him out to be.." This does not even begin to address how Darwin equated Africans and Australians as being "closer to the apes" than Caucasians. This avoids the inherent racism within the theory itself. Considering that a multi regional scenario for the evolution of man is now being presented (again), this does anything but quell the racism that is ingrained within the theory, as well asthe "species" allocations to ancient skulls exhibiting morphology that is readily found within Aboriginal tribes from the last 2 cent.
--Kyle Shockley
******
"..because being limited to 700 characters including spaces, I'm unable even to list all the errors, much less the reasons why." I was able to do it succinctly and quickly, with references. I am no great mind. So why can't you? "If you had any faith in your position, you wouldn't hesitate to accommodate me in public forum." No, but I would hesitate to entertain an individual if their sole purpose is to wind in circles with equivocations on definitions of words. Indeed, science means "observable, repeatable, and measurable in present time". Gravity can be observed and measured in real time. Miraculous genetic increases in functional complexity cannot.
--Kyle Shockley
******
"Just to whet your appetite in this discussion, let me point out a list of several dozen transitional intermediate species which your site repeatedly claims do not exist" So, these are forensic interpretations of the past, based upon incomplete fossil examples? "fish with feet, salamanders with gills, feathered dinosaurs, birds with half-wings, (and teeth and long tails) walking whales (and manatees)" Ahh, so the genetic mechanism that increased the functional complexity was embedded alongside the fossils? The fact that the resort is now to look at cladogram interpretations of fossils that are lacking soft tissue, musculature (and in some cases, the important bone structure to accurately claim transitional features as such) is telling for your touting ofimpressive evidence.Notice how any of this relies on a-priori interpretations on ambiguous evidence of unobserved history past? Sounds like faith is exercised here.
--Kyle Shockley
******
"You also assert that "macro"-evolution even by its proper definition is hindered by some imaginary limit that no geneticist has ever been able to find" Because both of our models (creation, evolution) start on a faith basis. One states that the genetic code was created (unobserved) and has genetic boundaries as to change within that organism. Another claims that the genetic info, which formed itself out of nothing, arose through time through random allocations (mutations) to create the genetic complexityand functionality we see today, with no limits as to this functional complexity increase (unobserved). While we cannot observe the creation of this info, everything else conforms to the fist model. Absolutely nothing has confirmed in real time observationthe second, which is counterintuitive and illogical(that complexity, info, and matter arises from nothing by itself).
--Kyle Shockley
******
How has the increase in genetic functional complexity ever been observed, tested, repeated, measures in real time? Indeed, we see examples of decreases being potentially beneficial in a transformed, not-as-suited-for-the-features environment. But these decreases say nothing to the increases necessary to turn a light sensitive pit into a complex trilobite eye (where are the undotted cladogram links for that particular example, or current time evidence for that matter?). This "preplanning" (as it would appear to be logically)in regards to genetic loss or superficial variation ("speciation") would be more in line with a creation scenario. If this "speciation" and genetic bottlenecking of populations is prime as an example of hypothetical materialistic macro changes, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your equivocationof terms employed for constructing a macro lineage scenario out of conservative or detrimental processes.
--Kyle Shockley
******
"All the evidence in every relevant field of study supports evolutionary Theory exclusively." Really? You mean the areas that rely on testable, repeatable, observable means to confirm the theory, and not basing it on a peer-pressured philosophical starting point to conform the evidence to as such? That's news to observable chemistry, which has yet to show any sort of law that negates chirality. So you are saying there has actually been an observed mechanism that randomly allocates all left handed amino acids into a functional protein, or that all right handed amino acids can link into a functional nucleotide all by itself in an environment where no info, nor prior functional complexity, constructed the above? This has been shown, in turn, to create an RNAor DNA strand by itself?
--Kyle Shockley
******
Walking whales? Indeed, you have a long way to go to sell Ambulocetus as a true "walking whale". http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1344.asp Seems that quite a few important features are missing from this specimen. This article also brings up the issue of the peer review process in paleontology, and how caution seems to be lacking in some respects in this field (this has been suspected for some time, as this field seems to be given the most "sensationalist" and visual coverage in the media)
--Kyle Shockley
******
L. Aron Nelson, For all the smarts you profess to possess on the evolution topic insofar as your apparent claim of infallibility for evolution and utter fallibility for creation, there appears to me to be not the slightest inkling of difference between your banter and the words of any other evolutionist that has graced this guestbook with nary the slightest bit of tangible, scientific proof for evolution! Without you even giving any specifics yet on the alleged flaws within this site and the astonishingproof you think you have for evolution, you sound no different from those that have preceded you whose ENTIRE BASIS for evolution is the presupposition that evolution is true. Please spare this guestbook anymore circular, religious blather masquerading asscience! Both sides of the issue have the exact same evidence to work with. Interpretations drawn from the evidence are belief based and cannot be tested or repeated. Your evolutionist beliefs are as religious as my creation beliefs!
--Craig Hampton
******
Mr. Nelson; your approach stemming from evolutionary systematics concerning you "birds from dinosaur stock" theorem on your site is very telling. Just remember that with the passing of the eminent elder researcher who touts such things, so goes the theorywhich he endorses and popularizes (what was subsequently held as "fact" by the evo. community for the time he is alive is replaced by another hypothetical scenario; very subjective). As I have heard it said before, "Looks ain't everything." Your comparison of Cassowaries with hypothetical dino-bird paintings (the elephant bird aside) testifies to your evo. systematic outlook. Unfortunately for your stance, it is an outdated practice.
--Kyle Shockley
******
"Because clawed fingers on functionless limbs {on emus} serve no purpose of intelligent design." Really? Rather omniscient of you to claim as such. Perhaps you are under the false assumption that the Cuverian model of immutability of species is what creationists (and the Bible) claim. From a fallen state, the reduction of genetic expression has found its way into what might have been for the emu an original design and usage, incorporated into some specific birds at the time (the hoatzin more than likely is not in its peak performance now; may we agree?) But as the environment went downhill after a period of time, so too the genetic loses found their niche, through natural selection. Notice that this is significant equilibria or reduction mechanism in effect? Where, might we ask, did the emu gain the genetic complexity for any number of its features from a hypothetically "lesser" ancestor, from its eye to its lung system to its locomotive system to its mental faculties, etc?
--Kyle Shockley
******
" {Creationists}..believing them to have been magically created seperate from, and therefore unrelated to, any other order of animals." Perhaps then you could show me what the hypothetical mechanism is that INCREASES genetic functional complexity (not a mechanism which reduces it, and then is either equalized or taken out altogether by natural selection ). Everything we observe conforms to the notion of a genetic vitality that is now being degraded among all living and functional systems. Your emu exampleshows this. We have NO idea just what the original archetype was for these (nor many other) animals. To castigate the one and to endorse your equally metaphysical claim of "genetic increases from time immemorial" is hypocritical.
--Kyle Shockley
******
Concerning the Castenedolo reference: "Forbidden Archaeology" (M.A. Cremo, R.L. Thompson, Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego; 1993, Govardhan Hill Publishing) p.422-432; Sergi, G. (1884) L'uono terziario in Lombardia, Archivio per L'Antropologia e la Etnologia, 14: 304-318; Sergi, R. (1912) Intorno all'uomo pliocenico in Italia. Rivista Di Antropologia (Rome), 17: 199-216; Ragazzoni (1880) La collina di Castenedolo, solto il rapporto antropologico, geologico ed agronomico. Commentari dell' Ateneo di Brescia, April 4, pp.120-128
--Kyle Shockley
