Talk:Evidence of common descent/Archive-Trolling

message: Evolutionism is merely a theory. You people understand this right?
"just how fins developed into limbs is still a mystery-but they did".-E.A. Hooton, Evolutionist.
"There is...no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin".-Frank M. Carpenter, Evolutionist
:In science, theory means that it is well supported by the evidence. Thanks for the contribution. I'm sure scientists will continue to study the gaps in our knowledge which you point out for some time yet. Jefffire 23:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it appears that you have confused the coloquial conception of a theory (meaning little more than a thought or idea) with the scientific definition of theory (an explination for recorded events). It's a common mistake, so I'm just giving you a heads up. -- Majin Gojira 01:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This post hurts my head.  It is written for the sole purpose of inciting pointless ageold creationist arguements against evolution.  This is amptly shown by the fact that each point the writer used is a basic fallacy pointed out in the Creation-evolution controversy article.  The above article shows quite clearly that the writer has no clue what the theory of evolution is and what the evidence that supports this theory is.  It is rather sad that people will disagree about evolution out of pure ignorance rather than read up on the topic (both from scientific and creationist sources) and then make a decent post.--Roland Deschain 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faults of Evolution 

message: Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution. I cite the following:  "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 ken 19:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ken, stop jumping from page to page trying to throw creationist quote mines around. That one is in fact such an old quote mine that it is even listed in the quote mine project here. Stop being disruptive. JoshuaZ 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridley said what he said regarding the fossil record.  What he says about other supposed evidences of evolution in no way invalidates what he said about the fossil record. ken 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridley did NOT say that "the fossil record does not support evolution".  It certainly does.  But it isn't needed to support evolution (almost all of it was discovered after Darwin published), as evolution can be deduced entirely from the other abundant evidence that Ridley mentioned. --Robert Stevens 17:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even a evolutionist admitted that the fossil record does not support evolution 

message: I believe the articles entitled Superbugs not super after all by Carl Wieland shows that antibiotic resistent bacteria are not good evidence for the macroevolutionary position.  Also, the article entitled The "Evolution" of Antibiotic Resistance by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D. shows that antiobiotic resistence is not good evidence for the evolutionary position.  I think the information in these articles should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article. 136.183.146.158 03:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wieland article has a section names "Natural selection, but not evolution" - what, pray tell, is natural selection supposed to do if it doesn't alter allele frequencies?  The Criswell article says "In 1980 it was estimated that 3-5% of S. pneumoniae were penicillin-resistant and by 1998, 34% of the S. pneumoniae sampled were resistant to penicillin" - changes in allele frequencies = evolution.  These articles actually present evidenc of evolution, not evidence against evolution, even though they dishonestly claim otherwise.  Guettarda 04:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guettarda, I don't believe you adequately addressed the creationists criticisms in the articles.  136.183.146.158 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is there to address?  The articles are systematically dishonest and deceptive.  Why should we waste our time with deception?  Guettarda 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe you demonstrated the articles are deceptive.  136.183.146.158 05:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe you should read what I wrote.  The authors are bold-facedly lying.  Lying is dishonest.  Lying with the aim of misleading believers is clearly deception.  Guettarda 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it would be a lot more constructive if you focused on the creationist criticisms in the articles and did not throw out assertions you do not demonstrate.  136.183.146.158 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What criticisms?  The "criticisms" are premised on false claims.  There's nothing to address but lies.  Guettarda 05:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As above - Daniel Criswell (is he notable ?) is presenting pseudoscience. In the begining  he has lots of facts regarding how bacteria are showing increasing Antibiotic Resistance and then he says in the last para that "The accumulation of mutations doesn't lead to a new kind of bacterium—it leads to extinction." In a roundabout way he trys to prove his hypothesis that "...resistance is a designed feature of pre-existing genes enabling bacteria to compete with the antibiotic producers in their environment.". Unfortunately that one sentence makes this paper pseudoscience. Ttiotsw 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antibiotic resistent bacteria are not evidence for evolution 

message: Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed? I believe the article entitled Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism? by Dr. Jerry Bergman shows that homology is not evidence for the evolutionary position. I think this link should be incorporated in the Wikipedia article since homology is said to be evidence for the macroevolutionary position. 136.183.146.158 06:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's crap.  Guettarda 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the anti-evolutionary homology link removed?