Not according to his own words both written and spoken.<quoted text>
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.
An ambiguous reference to microbiology but no specifics from someone willing to claim a fictional call to an evolutionary biologist.<quoted text>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.
An outright lie about transitional forms which have been found for numerous fossils series.
Mayr and Gould huh? Wonder what Niles Eldredge would say about that as well as your dishonest and inaccurate portrayal of the theory.
Not really a point so much as a meaningless and misguided statement. I suppose technically any living animal is transitional in a sense unless it goes extinct. I have no reason to doubt Patterson's honesty. Boundaries in the DNA? You are so clueless on evolution and biology. What a moron. You attempt to come across a someone familiar with science and then you make these asinine statements about half made creatures and next in line transitional creatures. No where are either of those postulated by evolution. You are poorly trying to portray the concept of a transitional form as if there should be a whole series of living transitional forms. It implies that extinct animals are not extinct.<quoted text>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.
I have no idea about any personal reflections Patterson may have had and it doesn't make sense that you do either. Especially a stranger on a brief phone call. A stranger that doesn't understand science, but can read minds over the phone.<quoted text>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.
I would imagine a second edition was important to him. It appears that it was especially important that he make clear that statements like those you have been making were without question not accurate or in any way reflected his position or reality. The second edition makes it completely clear that he accepted and supported evolution and did not condone or appreciate the smarmy attempts by creationists to twist his words.
What mechanism are you talking about? Oh, I see, you mean the flagellum. Yet another failed example of that failed concept irreducible complexity. Too bad for you that real scientists have found reduced versions in different bacteria that still have a function.<quoted text>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.
I have nothing to avoid that comes to mind. You have convinced me of your ignorance and dishonesty.