6days continues his dishonesty:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”*I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
Barbarian observes:
Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again):
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends,*it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
No matter how many times 6days is reminded, he waits a while and then tries to peddle the same dishonesty again and again.
6days protests:
Sorry, a tantrum won't help you. You have been repeatedly shown that Gould never said that there are no transitionals. As you have been shown, Gould has repeatedly asserted that they are abundant. Yet you persist in your dishonest attempts to argue that he said that.
Crocodile tears from the dishonest Barbarian.
You tried something dishonest. You got caught again. Learn from it.
You failed to note I was accurately quoting Colin Patterson who accurately quoted Gould.
It doesn't matter where you found the lie. It's still a lie and you knew it when you presented it. Even honest creationists admit that there are abundant transitionals:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
