Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Final stumpers for Creationists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jerry Smith" data-source="post: 177252" data-attributes="member: 2568"><p>Acutally you have it backwards. In the fossil record, there is a (relative) lack of transitional forms between "minor" kinds (species), and a plethora of transitional forms between "major" kinds (genera, class, order). </p><p></p><p>Goulds conclusion that evolution must have occurred in "leaps" is necessitated by the fact that the occurrance of evolution is proved by several independent lines of evidence, and that mere gaps in the fossil record are terribly insufficient to falsify evolution. He seeks to explain the gaps in terms of known fact by postulating a variation in the tempo of evolution. He may or may not be correct: his evidence from the gaps is somewhat inconclusive.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You must attack a conclusion in terms of the observations that went toward making it: either showing that the observations are inaccurate, or that the conclusion doesn't follow from them. But you can't just pick some isolated observations like "gaps" in the fossil record. Almost nothing follows from the gaps, since the gaps are what we expect to find no matter what theory of life we are examining. You must look at the evidence that can serve to confirm or falsify your theory.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jerry Smith, post: 177252, member: 2568"] Acutally you have it backwards. In the fossil record, there is a (relative) lack of transitional forms between "minor" kinds (species), and a plethora of transitional forms between "major" kinds (genera, class, order). Goulds conclusion that evolution must have occurred in "leaps" is necessitated by the fact that the occurrance of evolution is proved by several independent lines of evidence, and that mere gaps in the fossil record are terribly insufficient to falsify evolution. He seeks to explain the gaps in terms of known fact by postulating a variation in the tempo of evolution. He may or may not be correct: his evidence from the gaps is somewhat inconclusive. You must attack a conclusion in terms of the observations that went toward making it: either showing that the observations are inaccurate, or that the conclusion doesn't follow from them. But you can't just pick some isolated observations like "gaps" in the fossil record. Almost nothing follows from the gaps, since the gaps are what we expect to find no matter what theory of life we are examining. You must look at the evidence that can serve to confirm or falsify your theory. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Final stumpers for Creationists
Top
Bottom