Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I amfor I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil recordgeologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate speciesmore than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibriumsee essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationismwith God acting in the egg.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Nick,
I suggest that you read the following: Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
Originally posted by npetreley
Again? Why? I have it pretty much memorized by now.
You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.Originally posted by Sauron
Wanna explain the SEVERAL HUNDRED transitional fossils listed here?
Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.Let me make it easy on you. Pick any 10 listed there, and demonstrate why they are not transitional.
Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example. That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals. Their frauds would be more easily exposed.Or how about the 29 DIFFERENT and INDEPENDENT evidences for macroevolution here?
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Then why do you make such obvious mistakes as equating puncuated equilibrium with hopeful monster?
Originally posted by npetreley
Equate? I think my comparison was pretty clear. Perhaps it's a reading comprehension issue on your part.
Punk eek is "pucutated equilibrium," which is really just a more palatable version of the hopeful monster. It's basically the same idea, only toned down and restated so that it won't sound as outrageous.
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.
If the seal was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the seal is a transitional fossil between land mammals and sea mammals.
If the frog was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the frog is a transitional fossil between the first amphibians and therapod dinosaurs. "Notice the strong hind legs in proportion to the arms... and the larger mouth cavity."
If the chicken was an extinct creature, evolutionists would be claiming the chicken is a transitional fossil between land-based birds and birds of flight.
The list goes on and on... macro-evolution is a myth.
Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.
Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example. That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals. Their frauds would be more easily exposed.
Originally posted by Cyclo Rider
You mean transitional myths. They don't require an explanation since they are the product of irrational fantasies at worst and ridiculous assumptions at best.
The list goes on and on... macro-evolution is a myth.
Let me make it easy on you--because they were created that way.
Already saw the page and the evidences don't exist, except in word myths and fantasies of which the aforementioned are a hilarious example.
That's probably why they don't show illustrations of the animals.
. "Why isn't the FAQ illustrated?"
<DD>The primary reasons are practical: there aren't any un-copyrighted illustrations available, and I don't own a scanner (or even a modem, or even [gasp] a web surfer). Furthermore, creating good fossil illustrations would be extremely difficult, for the following reasons. Many of the fossil illustrations seen in textbooks are actually very inaccurate (for instance, Hyracotherium is usually drawn to look like a little horse; but in fact, it did not look at all like a horse). Good fossil illustrations can only be done by a small subset of scientific illustrators who are trained in anatomy and paleontology. Hiring one of these people would cost actual money. The illustrator would then have to spend several years flying to 50 or so museums to see the original fossils and talking to the expert paleontologists who have studied each fossil. Furthermore, the species-to-species transitions would be tricky to illustrate, since they involve whole populations of hundreds of fossils simultaneously showing gradual shifts in various traits. It would be an exciting project -- but doing it right would take years and would require substantial funding for salaries, travel, and equipment.
Their frauds would be more easily exposed.
Originally posted by RufusAtticus
You are clearly equating the two. Perhaps you should be more careful with your writing if that is not what you intended and accept correction more graciously.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Please direct me to the chapter and verse where it explains why men have nipples.
Now, why would a species develop "walking limbs" before they were necessary?
Could the species "know" that someday its ancestors would need to walk on land?
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
You told HtH that the Bible had all the answers. Are you now retracting that statement?
Originally posted by npetreley
You told me that you could prove abiogenesis is true and show step by step how it happened. Are you now retracting that statement?
See? I can put words in YOUR mouth, too.
HtH wrote:
And the point is not that we know God. Of course we dont but we can look at something and say thats an awfully strange way of doing something,
To which npetreley replied:
Maybe. But if you'd pick up your Bible and read it, you'd find the answer there.
At which point I asked:
Please direct me to the chapter and verse where it explains why men have nipples.
Originally posted by npetreley
Perhaps you should be more careful with your reading and accept the fact that you're wrong -- ever -- gracefully or not. If it's "basically same idea, toned down, restated" then it's not equal. How is it toned down and restated? I explained in the rest of my post.
Originally posted by Mephibosheth
Tetrapods started a distinctly different limb system. Well-defined joints and digits (chiridium) were never seen before that time.
The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.
Originally posted by Mephibosheth
The problem with Acanthostega is that it was unable to support itself on its limbs, much less attempt to be ambulatory on them.
Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I don't need to put words in your mouth to make you look foolish, Nick. You do it to yourself.
Also, if God made all the complex stuff, why did he bother to make all the protozoans as well? And why on earth did he create bacteria and viruses?
Their knowledge of the God (in whom many of them do not even believe!) is so thorough and absolute that they can be certain beyond any doubt that this God would not create the virus. Indeed, they know this God so well that there's no point in reading the Bible to see if there are any clues to this riddle there.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?