l-bow

...when you've quoted PE'ers saying that the fossil records has gaps between species? Remember SPECIATION means creation of a _SPECIE_.

randman

Darwin's finches.

I have quoted PE advocates. Why don't you explain what they mean?
What they notice is how little species change in the fossil record. Now, just about everyone accepts some variation and even speciation so I guess what PE advocates are getting at is these are not the kind of changes that are leading to macro-evolution.
Or, possibly, they are saying they don't see any speciation in the fossil record. I figured they must mean the speciation that takes place that is seen does not lead to macro-evolution, which is pretty consistent with creationism actually.
By the way, this is an interesting topic of discussion, but you strike me as one who has no clue as to what Gould was talking about concerning stasis and such.
Maybe you should take some time to actually learn a little of what they are talking about. I kind of like this quote, which is from a conference on the subject quite awhile back, but it is illuminating to some of the implications in the fossil record.

"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequences [sic]. Changes above the species level - involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns - are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."
<a href="http://www.theistic-evolution.com/lewin.html" target="_blank">http://www.theistic-evolution.com/lewin.html</a>

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

l-bow

randman,

If you're not sure what PE'ers actually claim, then you shouldn't use them to support your position.

And one more thing. Have you actually seen Darwin's finches evolve from a single ancestor? So how do you know that the individual finch types weren't just individually created?

And one more thing. That quote you've included says that macroevolution involves the "origin of new species". Guess what speciation is? Creation of a new specie.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: l-bow ]</p>

randman

Now, you are showing your ignorance. Seems like you just want to dodge the issue.
PEers don't usually discuss their claims relative to creationist models.
PEers state the reason we don't see the transitions, and the reason species exhibit stasis is not that just that we have an incomplete record, but that stasis is a real aspect and a dominant one of how species exist. In other words, they argue the fossil record is a little more complete in some aspects than evolutionists have suppossed.
They argue that changes happen around a median and thus what appears to be evolutionary change is actually not, at least for the most part, because those same changes swing back again within the life-span of the species.
In other words, the fossils don't show the changes.
What PE postulates is a jerky form of evolution in which there are no fossils showing the transitions, but just fully formed species later down the line.
Maybe you should bone up a little on the fossil record before making comments here.
But I tell you what, humor the less-knowledgable and tell us why PE claims stasis is a fact of the fossil record.

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

l-bow

So if there are gaps between species, then are we to conclude that they actually are created separately?

gravitybow

randman,

Are you saying that microevolution is decoupled from macroevolution? That they are separate things and don't overlap to any degree?

Vorkosigan

PEers state the reason we don't see the transitions, and the reason species exhibit stasis is not that just that we have an incomplete record, but that stasis is a real aspect and a dominant one of how species exist. In other words, they argue the fossil record is a little more complete in some aspects than evolutionists have suppossed.

PE is a criticism of views of the rates and processes of speciation.

see this excellent article:
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html</a>

Show us, Randman, how Punk Eeq invalidates evolution. You seem to have some bizarre idea that it invalidates evolution, whereas it is merely one view of several about how evolution actually occurs. Note that it is not even widely accepted among evolutionary biologists; there are many who believe that the appearance of Punk Eeq is simply an artifact of the way the fossil record is constructed.

Michael

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

gravitybow

randman,

My questions got lost in the flurry of threads you are, no doubt, doing your best to juggle. I would like to reiterate them with some elaboration. Concerning PEers, you said:
But you also quoted one PEer as saying:
I'm puzzled why you would say you "kind of like this quote" because "it is illuminating to some of the implications in the fossil record." I'm puzzled because the author does not say that macroevolution is exclusive of microevolution. He just says you can't simply extrapolate the underlying mechanism to get there.

My questions:
Is it your contention that micrevolution is decoupled from macroevolution? That they are separate things and don't overlap to any degree?

If they are, in your view, separate, why use the above quote (the author doesn't say they are separate)? If the author contends that micro and macro overlap, isn't this quote pretty much worthless to your position?