Evolution As Science? Really...?

[Omacron]

I found the quotes that you have listed at the searchlight.iwarp.com Jerusalem SearchLight websight. They are listed there in the order you have, except you have omitted some quotes. I would advise you to go to unbiased sources to find information on this subject. If I wanted to, I am sure I could find quotes and data that supports the overwhelming evadence for evolution. I really try to keep an open mind about all this, but have found no argument from young earthers that has convinced me that we did not evolve. Keep striving to obtain knowledge. It is a virtue.

 

[Edmond]

Out of context quotes, out of date quotes, and now the argument from authority fallacy as well. Your a very poor debater Edmond.

If you would have actually read his books, you would have seen that he criticizes the model that evolution progresses with a constant speed, not that evolution happens. If you would have read any books on evolution by other authorities than Gould, you would have seen that he did some severe strawmanning in that proces himself. If you would have read further in the later writings of Gould and his opponents, you would have seen that this was resolved in the easy solution that evolution does not progress in a constant speed. Not, which you want to imply with the quotes, that Gould ever doubted that the theory of evolution was correct. It is fairly safe to say that it is you, Edmond, not me, that has never read a great deal of Stephen Jay Gould (you even spelled his name incorrectly).

My ironymeter just exploded.

I would posit that, by implying that you have actually read a significant amount of Stephen Jay Gould's writings, you are actually lying.

Well k80, as usual you have gotten several things wrong. First, the quotes are not outdated because cleverlution finds itself in the same dilemas today that it has been in for the last 120 years...millions of scientiist being paid to try everthing in the book to research and find the smallest idea of a thread that will support this febble theory. Billions of dollars and man-hours has produced more questions than answers.

And....oh yes, I have raed much of Gould...obviously unlike yourself. If you had you would have pointed out that he is the major contributor to the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium during your argument.

And...the next time you call a someone a liar you need to realize it genearlly an accusation against an opponent to attempt to gain a position of credibility for themselves....in which case it becomes evident that such credibility, as well a personal integrity is far lacking. Especially since they express such crude comments about someone they know nothing about...and have the arrogance to conclude exactly what that person has read on a particular subject. Such a person's defences are generally bristled to the max.

I would be in the same position if I had to justify and defend the fragile shell of evolution. When your own first string of scientists are voicing doubts about the thing they make most of their liveihoods doing....that would make anyone who has their life beliefs wrapped up in a thoery like this defensive. ...

-------------------------------

 

[Physics_guy]

And....oh yes, I have raed much of Gould...obviously unlike yourself. If you had you would have pointed out that he is the major contributor to the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium during your argument.

Which of Gould's books or papers have you read? Please - I would really like to know.

Also, please tell us in your own words what Gould said about and meant by Punctuated Equilibrium? I am interested in your understanding of it.

Thanks

 

[Edmond]

Which of Gould's books or papers have you read? Please - I would really like to know.

Also, please tell us in your own words what Gould said about and meant by Punctuated Equilibrium? I am interested in your understanding of it.

Thanks

You evolutionists seem to have a problem allowing a debator to respond for himself.

If I asked you to list the specific books you have read by or about a particular person or subject for the past 30 years what would your biblography consist of? Let's get a little bit real. Or have you even reach that age chronological yet?

As for Gould's theory of puntuated equalibrium theory...I have read direct quotes, in context by Gould that said without question that he was embarrased as a scientist as to how little they had found over the past 80 years of research to substantiate Darwin's theory of the gradual progression of change in the evolution of boilogical life. He stated, in fact, that the more they research the MORE they find that the OPPOSITE reality is true. They find that even bigger gaps exest in the supposed transitions between species and what they really see is very strong evidence that species appear in unique forms almost instantanoiusly throughout the fossil record.

As a result of this he attempted to salvage the reputation of the biological evolutionary theory be suggesting an alternative that he coined...Punctuated Equalibrium. Its thoery is based more on the facts that they have found in the field, descibed about, not on Darwin's falacies.

If you disagree with this I suggest you read Gould. In the meantime, if you have read Gould I would strongly suggest your recommend to you cohort MR. Electric that he issue an apology for accussing someone of being a liar about something he knows nothing about. I'm sure you'll brush over such a request as none of your business but it points to the arrogance and poor use of integrity demonstrated by many evolutionists throughout this form....including the belief they can require a book list on demand to 'measure; a persons knowledge of a subject.

Such tactics are used to turn the focus of questionable credibility away from ones-self and on to an opponemt while the subject you are trying to defend has been built on a few men's hopeful expectation alone since the days in which this modern evolutionary theory was concieved.

In reality, it is the integrity of evolution that is questionable, a fact that your camp is most obviously and clearly aware of. Subsequent to this, do not expect your cross-examination type intimidation techniques to produce a response of meeting of any of your pseudo-authoritarian types of expectations. You will be very disappointed to find no results. I find that those who practice such things are never satisfied with the result they receive anyhow....

-------------------------------------------------

 

[Valkhorn]

I have read direct quotes, in context

Read: Mined quotes from creationist websites. Unless you read the whole chapter, you probably won't know the context.

Also, I do not believe you know what PE is. Most creationists don't. It does not mean full forms magically appear and it is not a full alternative to evolution.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:

1. Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
2. Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
3. Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
4. Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
5. Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
6. Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
7. Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
8. Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
9. Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection.

The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.

PE relies upon the insights of study of modern species for its principles. These studies indicate the importance of consideration of geography and interspecies interactions upon predictions of the distribution and abundance of transitional specimens. While Eldredge and Gould acknowledge that geological processes contribute to the "gappiness" of the fossil record, they also assert that PE is by far the more important consideration in that regard.

Take a look at the emboldened part. They state that fossils are rare to begin with and do not mean things magically appeared from one generation to the next - i.e. one animal didn't have an eye, then the next had a fully functional mammalian eye.

 

[Micaiah]

Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.

Always good when YEC's hear evolutionists concede this point.

 

[Elduran]

Always good when YEC's hear evolutionists concede this point.

Did you read the explanation after the comma? Or did you stop reading when you thought that this was actually an argument against evolution?

 

[Deamiter]

closed for review (possibly for quite a while as I'm very busy at the moment.)

 

[A New Dawn]

thread cleaned up

 

[A New Dawn]

MOD HAT ON!

This thread has been cleaned of the off-topic tangents and the flames. Please post on-topic. If you have nothing to say about the topic, then don't post.

Thanks.

MOD HAT OFF!

 

[Loudmouth]

As for Gould's theory of puntuated equalibrium theory...I have read direct quotes, in context by Gould that said without question that he was embarrased as a scientist as to how little they had found over the past 80 years of research to substantiate Darwin's theory of the gradual progression of change in the evolution of boilogical life. He stated, in fact, that the more they research the MORE they find that the OPPOSITE reality is true. They find that even bigger gaps exest in the supposed transitions between species and what they really see is very strong evidence that species appear in unique forms almost instantanoiusly throughout the fossil record.

Gould explained why the fossil record was lacking transitionals for speciation. This is due to the fact that speciation often occurs in small populations, so the chance of fossilization is low, as is finding this small population topographically.

As a result of this he attempted to salvage the reputation of the biological evolutionary theory be suggesting an alternative that he coined...Punctuated Equalibrium. Its thoery is based more on the facts that they have found in the field, descibed about, not on Darwin's falacies.

Darwin proposed a type of Punctuated Equilibrium, and gave the same reasons as Eldredge and Gould for the rarity of transtionals between species.

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439

If you disagree with this I suggest you read Gould.

I suggest the same for you.

It doesn't help that you quote Gould out of context, making it seem as if he does not support the theory of evolution. It is this type of behavior that makes creationists look bad.

 

[LittleNipper]

So what you saying is that Evolution is mostly conjecture and secular reasoning and that there is little tangible scientific research, investigation, or scientific experimentation that is scientifically conclusive.

 

[Caphi]

So what you saying is that Evolution is mostly conjecture and secular reasoning and that there is little tangible scientific research, investigation, or scientific experimentation that is scientifically conclusive.

Yeah, that's what he's saying... too bad the whole thing is essentially false and, perhaps more importantly, he's using foolish and transparent methods.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what you saying is that Evolution is mostly conjecture and secular reasoning and that there is little tangible scientific research, investigation, or scientific experimentation that is scientifically conclusive.

The scientific research is tangible, testable, and supports the theory of evolution. That is unless you are committed to ignoring the evidence, such as ERV's. There are still great examples of fine grained transitions found in the fossil record, horse evolution being one of them. Here is a pic of how horse evolution proceeded with the species arranged in their repsective lineages and respective strata. From here

 

[LittleNipper]

The scientific research is tangible, testable, and supports the theory of evolution. That is unless you are committed to ignoring the evidence, such as ERV's. There are still great examples of fine grained transitions found in the fossil record, horse evolution being one of them. Here is a pic of how horse evolution proceeded with the species arranged in their repsective lineages and respective strata. From here

It is already known that this whole chart thing is for the horses. All the different sized horses have been found in different strata both above and below common "modern" horses. This has been rejected for sometime now.... Only the uninformed still cling to this, usually because they are reading outdated evolution propaganda....

 

[Valkhorn]

It is already known that this whole chart thing is for the horses. All the different sized horses have been found in different strata both above and below common "modern" horses. This has been rejected for sometime now

Where?

 

[Split Rock]

It is already known that this whole chart thing is for the horses. All the different sized horses have been found in different strata both above and below common "modern" horses. This has been rejected for sometime now.... Only the uninformed still cling to this, usually because they are reading outdated evolution propaganda....

Only the uniformed cling to distortions written by LCWs who hypocritically ignore the commandments of their God written down in the book they claim is His Word.

The diagram is simplified, but represents an accurate picture of the lineage that produced the modern horse, Equus. Other lineages of the Horse family produced smaller sized animals that continued to be browsers like Equus' ancestor (e.g. compare Megahippus to Pliohippas in the diagram) . If you actually studied the evidence, you would understand that.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is already known that this whole chart thing is for the horses. All the different sized horses have been found in different strata both above and below common "modern" horses. This has been rejected for sometime now.... Only the uninformed still cling to this, usually because they are reading outdated evolution propaganda....

Care to back this up?

 

[Valkhorn]

Care to back this up?

I don't think he ever will.

 

[HairlessSimian]

So what you saying is that Evolution is mostly conjecture and secular reasoning and that there is little tangible scientific research, investigation, or scientific experimentation that is scientifically conclusive.

The sixth Commandment says thou shall not lie.
Are you an expert to be able to assert that there is little tangible scientific research & investigation or conclusive experimentation? Yes or no?