l-bow

Since you, as a creationist, quote Gould as saying there are no transitionals in the fossil record between two successive species, this means you accept this as evidence of these two species as actually being separte creations of God rgiht? If so, how can you say Homo erectus is a human, since separate species are actually separate creations of God?

randman

First of all, I don't have time to debate a whole new thread.
But in short, I think the point here is obvious. I can't really argue all of the details, but I obviously said I thought homo erectus was not a separate species. Now, if you are going to go into a an expansive response, let's do it tomorrow, OK?
I have to work some today.
Furthermore, I quote Gould in context i might add because his assertions about stasis contradict what I was taught about evolution. Basically, I can debate the lies that I was taught concerning evolution since that was what I was taught. Most of what was taught about evolution was either a hoax or an overstatement, and thus I quit beleiving in it.
Some have called for me to defend creationism, and my response is when creationism is taught side-by-side in the schools, then asking for peple to defend it is plausible. Since evolution is really the only plate on the table right now, I think debunking evolution is enough for me.

Silent Dave

Replace evolution with "natural childbirth" and creationism with "the stork theory" in the above sentence, and perhaps you'll realize how stupid it is. Or perhaps not.

In any case, there are two scenarios here: evolution begin taught in public schools and creationism not being taught, which is the status quo -- what we have right now -- and evolution and creationism being taught side by side in the schools, which is what you would see. So it's either "evolution in, creationism out" or "evolution in, creationism in." Either way, evolution is in. That means creationism, not evolution, is at issue here, and must therefore be defended.

A good start would be to state a scientific, empirically verifiable theory of creationism, which has never been done. And when I say "never been done," I speak the literal truth.

You didn't answer my question in the other thread, so I will repeat it here, and elsewhere as necessary until you answer it: What is the biological or genetic mechanism which, while permitting variations within "kinds" of species, prevents variations between them?


Dave

liquid

randman, I am sure someone has pointed this out to you, but just in case...

- Stephen Jay Gould,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory"
[Emphasis mine]

Seeing as you have seen fit to quote Gould as an authority, why don't you take a look at what he REALLY thinks. There is no contradiction in what he states and what is taught. All he was saying is that although there aren't many clear transitionals between species (and why should there be? These will have the smallest modifications of any transitionals, and finding three consequent species isn't particularly likely).

You presumably think that his statement (used out of context, as his quote CLEARLY shows) contradicts your uneducated strawman charicature of evolution...

Mageth

liquid -

I posted that to randman in a couple of other threads. Makes no difference - he still insists on giving his interpretation of what Gould REALLY means.

sensate

Randman, if you want creationism taught side by side with evolution you really should be prepared to defend it. Make your case for creationism.

Dr Rick

What an incredibly stupid and evasive assertion. "Debunking" evolution would not mean that creationism is correct or should be taught. Furthermore, you have previously stated that there are arguments at AiG that support creationism that we have been avoiding. You are now wavering on that stand.

C'mon, Randman, You're dodging the challenge: "Why don't you surf on over to the AiG website and pick out the one argument for a young-earth or for flood 'geology' that you think is their absolute "best." Then come back here and post a link so we can discuss the argument at length (as time permits). Let's see who is taking the straw-man approach, shall we?"

Post the best argument that you claim we've been avoiding. It's becoming quite clear that you're the one trying to avoid a straight-forward debate. You are the one resorting to strawman fallacies.

Valentine Pontifex

Randman wrote:

How does stasis contradict anything that has been taught about evolution (assuming you did not have a quack as a teacher)?

Stasis contradicts the idea that Darwinian evolution is a goal directed process or that its progress is inevitable or that tends must continue. But these ideas have not been part of evolutionary biology since the 1930s.

randman

Anyone that thinks the following quotes are out of context are welcome to explain the true meaning of them. Here they are. Please do so one by one. Gould, by the way, in his complaint reiterates that the species to species transitions are lacking. I suggest some of you quit being scared to death of the evidence, and deal with it.
On the dumb idea of which mechanism prevents, I guess you are now stating that it is OK to merely state something, and that is proof. What a joke?

This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:


“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to “several” superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences—“more than enough” (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these “superb examples” were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation—not unheard of among evolutionists—would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]


<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a>

randman

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

If the species to species evolutionary path is not shown, how do you know that an extinct species is a transitional form?
In fact, the transition itself is not shown.