randman

YOu guys are getting absurd.
1. It is dogmatic to state speculative stuff as facts.
2. The quotes are not out of context. You just don't want to deal with what they are saying. Over and over again, I hear you guys state they are taken out of context, but never the context you think they are given in. They are not out of context. Gould felt the data in the fossil record reflected "stasis" and "sudden appearance" and has alternatively said gradualistic species to species transitions are "rare, "impossible", "do not exist", and "generally lacking." This is the context. I am aware that he considers in-bewtween forms as transitional, but the exact transitions are not shown.
3. Transitional? For the evolutionists, everything is automatically transitional since it is assumed evolution occurred. However, the reality is the transitions are not shown. There are wide differences and distinctions between species, and they appear in a manner fully formed without showing the changes in how they got there (sudden appearance) and once here, they exhibit little change(stasis). To me, this is proof against evolution, not for it, and since this is the only hard data around, it speaks volumes.
If evolution were true, I would expect to see the smaller changes, even very tiny, much more clearly laid out in the fossil record so that you would see one species gradually changing ever so slightly into another until the creature is something altogether different.
The reason Gould speaks of stais is not the species don't change, but that they do so around a medium. For instance, Cro-magnon man was larger than people today, but people today are ;arger than 2000 years ago. So there develops a median that the changes operate around. This is the facts.
If evolution were true, the median should not exist, but it does, indicating that micro-evolutionary changes are in fact limited within a range, and that range therefore is evidence that micro-evolution is not the vehicle driving macro-evolution.

DougI

lpetrich

Like speculations about some supposed "creator"???

All that means is that evolution of macroscopic features goes in bursts (PE).

However, if evolution goes in bursts, then there would be little opportunity for preservation of the participants in those bursts. And indeed, we find a few transitions between fossil species here and there, though they are rare.

But if every species is a special creation, there must have been hundreds of millions of such special creations over the Earth's history -- and special creations of species not very different from their predecessors, and special creations whose distributions are governed by their predecessors' ability to travel. In short, special creation that looks much like evolution, a variant of Philip Gosse's Omphalos hypothesis.

randman

By the way, is there a way to go back and edit these posts. I am appalled at my mispelling and poor grammar, but in the heat of trying to get this all typed out and maintain my job, a lot of mistakes are made.

tgamble

yeah, clink on the edit icon just above your post. It's next to the quote marks.

Try and edit em so they are more accurate!

randman

"When Gould says his comments are taking out of context we tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. The changes can be sudden (not in a matter of minutes however) but he doesn't reject gradual change as proposed by Darwin. Since there are multiple dating methods available it can be determined how sudden these changes actually are."

Then, you explain the context. What does he mean by stasis and sudden appearance. You know full well that I am not taking things out of context. The fact is you are dodging the issue. Gould postulates that evolution occurs in a jerky pattern because of what he sees in the fossil record. Species appear fully formed, and exhibit little change. The actually "jerky" transitions are not shown at either end, but he belives intemediate steps between major groups are seen, not because the transitions are seen, but because the creature appears half-way or so between the 2 groups.

- If evolution were true, I would expect to see the smaller changes, even very tiny, much more clearly laid out in the fossil record so that you would see one species gradually changing ever so slightly into another until the creature is something altogether different.

"I would expect for you to see something like that you would have to be millions of years old, or else observe the changes happening in modern species such as types of salamander."

See the changes in the fossil record which is millins of years old.

The reason Gould speaks of stasis is not the species don't change, but that they do so around a medium. For instance, Cro-magnon man was larger than people today, but people today are larger than 2000 years ago. So there develops a median that the changes operate around. This is the facts.

"Cro-magnon is modern human. Variances of growth are not evidence of evolution but changes in bone structure is. I doubt any scientist would even bring up the subject, however dishonest cretinists would."

My point is that he is modern human, but you see the species human change based around a median. Too bad, you missed the point.

If evolution were true, the median should not exist, but it does, indicating that micro-evolutionary changes are in fact limited within a range, and that range therefore is evidence that micro-evolution is not the vehicle driving macro-evolution.

"So what is that mechanism that limits change within a population? Are there little underwear gnomes that break into bedrooms and say, "Stop, you can't conceive because the result will violate the evolutionary limits in your species!"?

The fact is the hard data doesn't show it happening. Since these micro-evolutionary changes revolve around a median, it is up to you to prove they do not. Where's the beef? The what is the mechanism is just a weak excuse for not proving your contention. In other words, you have to prove your contentions. You can't say to me that well, you must prove it wrong. Can you prove God doesn't exist? By your standards, I just proved God does.

Boro Nut

That's easy.
1.Ar
2.Arch
3.Archae
4.Archaeop
5.Archaeopte
6.Archaeopteryx
7.Extinct
8.Wormfood
9.Bones
10.Fossil
11.Museum Exhibit

Boro Nut

Boro Nut

Well let's put you on the spot then. Don't you accept that it is possible for a single celled organism to change into a fully fledged human being as we understand the definition? This is a scientifically documented process accepted even by the Catholic Church by the way. How long do you think this transition would take if it were possible?

Boro Nut

PS - I've done it twice and it took about 9 months both times.

MrDarwin

You do realize, don't you, that all sides of the debate agree that the fossil record is not complete, and we do not have fossils of every species that ever lived?

Kosh

I can beat that! We did it twice in "8 months"
(36 weeks actually, since full term is 40).
Snowstorms (lower barometric pressure) can
be very influential on expecting mothers...