I didn't provide you with the entire quote. In truth Dr. Patterson had been asking numerous groups the same question, not just about systematics, but in general about finding any one thing about evolution that a person knew was true.<quoted text>I don't buy it. Funny how you remember something so well that you claim happened over 20 years ago. At least you didn't say it happened last year. You got a lot of information about the man from a brief phone conversation.
I can't imagine a man of science would point to a living animal and call it an example of a transitional species. That would be rather stupid. Of course it is a stupid topic. Transitional to what? That would require three points and not just a single point or even two points. I suppose I will have to spell it out. Transitional means coming from something and going to something.
A man that wrote a book entitled Evolution and then did a second edition had nothing to offer in support of evolution? Are you daft as well as a liar?
You are name dropping again. I would imagine that most evolutionists were aware of Michael Denton's book regarding evolution unless you mean his work in erythrocytes. They do fit the pattern of using fundamentalist propaganda to support your belief that you have established on here.
New findings in micro-biology were unraveling any possibility to explain evolution as was the nagging absence of transitional forms in the living and fossil record. Mayr and Gould had recently come up with "punctuated equilibrium" as an answer. Lets have it happen so fast it leaves no trace.
My point is if evolution is true there should be many examples of transitional forms running around today, there are none. This perplexed Patterson and at least he was honest about it. The lung fish had been postulated as an intermediate fish becoming a land animal, but convergence defeats that, as does boundaries in the DNA, how would a 1/2 done version breath and live? Like any bad mutation it would be DOA, and where are the next versions? nowhere.
Its obvious Patterson had been doing some personal reflection. His tone to me also indicated the same lack of faith in 1990. Revising his book was a life goal, so what? I hope t see him in Heaven.
At any rate, how come such a complex organism like a Prokaryotic bacteria from 3.6 BY ago not evolve as better mechanism than the one we see still operating perfectly today? Have you been avoiding the real question? In 2009 they studied code from 40,000 generations and still got the same cell, with the same flagella driven by a proton motor! Only a super intelligence could do that, not mindless self directed evolution.