i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.Given the Gould quotes above, would you say that Gould believes that there are transitional fossils?
Upvote
0
i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.Given the Gould quotes above, would you say that Gould believes that there are transitional fossils?
i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.
i will refer you to the science issue and upload i gave, and ask you the same question.
see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.Neither of which were written by Gould.
By Gould's own words, would you say that he thinks there are transitional fossils?
see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.
see post 101, i will not respond to this in any other way.
so essentially, you can quit asking.
Look, you can try to twist Gould's words all you want, but the man was extremely vocal about his views both on transitional fossils and on how creationists misrepresent his contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology. To pretend that he somehow believed that there were no transitional fossils, or that this was a problem for evolution, is simply untenable and contradicts virtually all of the man's work, both in the scientific literature and the popular literature.
that's exactly why i have refered loudmouth to the issue of science and to the upload i provided.Look, you can try to twist Gould's words all you want, but the man was extremely vocal about his views both on transitional fossils and on how creationists misrepresent his contributions to paleontology and evolutionary biology. To pretend that he somehow believed that there were no transitional fossils, or that this was a problem for evolution, is simply untenable and contradicts virtually all of the man's work, both in the scientific literature and the popular literature.
wrong.
it was written by both of them.
By the way: Loudmouth is right. You're mistaking the title line for the author line. Just in case it's not clear enough:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331943?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This lists Sepkoski as the sole author. So do these:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-004-2084-5
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ntitative_Revolution_in_American_Paleobiology
Indeed, it would be quite bizarre to have Gould as an author, given as the paper was written in 2005, three whole years after Gould's death.
like i stated in the edit, the issue wasn't about gould.By the way: Loudmouth is right. You're mistaking the title line for the author line. Just in case it's not clear enough:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4331943?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
This lists Sepkoski as the sole author. So do these:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10739-004-2084-5
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ntitative_Revolution_in_American_Paleobiology
Indeed, it would be quite bizarre to have Gould as an author, given as the paper was written in 2005, three whole years after Gould's death.
How so? In your own words, please?
Nowhere does any textbook on thermodynamics claim any such thing. This is something you have made up from whole cloth.
Let's take a look at the oceans. They are warmer at the equator and cooler at the poles. That is an ordered system, and it is maintained due to the energy coming in from the Sun. A disordered ocean system wouldn't have currents or differences in temperature. It would be at equilibrium. The fact of the matter is that thermodynamically improbable chemical reactions can be made probable by the addition of energy. That's the real science.
There is no transitional path from tiny 3 toed weasel looking horses to todays 1 toed horse.
Heat has done nothing to increase order in that pan. Patterns are not the same as information. That goes for crystals and snowflakes too.
incorrect analogy.Take a small, say 100 piece puzzle. Add energy of any type. Did it self-assemble?