Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[chad kincham]

What exactly has "been proven by science"? And who makes that claim? Go come with some specifics.

What exactly has been falsified? Show us that faslification? Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.


You mean, "the Voyage of the Beagle"? Which was way before "On the Origin of Species"?


But that doesn't negate all the ones found. Which is an embarrassment to your ilk.

Except it does.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum's journal entitled "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology" in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.5 The following April, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.6

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)


Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Francis Hitching).

 

[chad kincham]

Remember how I pointed out that you do not understand the basics of science? This confirms my claim. What are these supposed "data points". What testable hypothesis points to a creator? You appear to be once again accusing others of your sins.

What testable hypotheses does evolution have?

A hypothesis must be testable, observable, and repeatable which leaves ToE out.

 

[chad kincham]

You mean, "the Voyage of the Beagle"? Which was way before "On the Origin of Species"?

Since the topic and debate is evolutionary theory, I’ll let you figure out which first book.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except it does.
The following April, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.6

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

It's amazing how Creationists continue to quote mine stephen J gould time and time again. And same with this other quote above:

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." -Dr. Collin Patterson.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as 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."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes


This is all just more young earth Creationist dishonesty.

In fact, Eldredge and Gould actually did support allopatric speciation as a means of evolution that would produce evidence as we see in the fossil record. To say that they didn't believe that transitional fossils exist is really just false and anyone who actually reads either of their works knows this quite well (as opposed to reading YEC quote mines).

 

[chad kincham]

Kinda, sorta. But not really.

Here's the thing though - Darwin's writing about evolution isn't some kind of holy writ. He was wrong about HEAPS of stuff concerning evolutionary biology. (As is to be expected - this was bleeding edge theoretical science at the time.)

Here's a pop science article on some of his mistakes: Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution

Also, being wrong about phylectic gradualism doesn't falisfy evolution - it just falsifies one concept of the process of speciation. Thus, the development of the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

Additionally, the Cambrian Explosion doesn't falsify phyletic gradualism. Adaptive radiations - of which the Cambrian Explosion is just one example - just demonstrate that phyletic gradualism is not the sole model of speciation. It turns out that BOTH phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are correct - its just that one occurs in some conditions and one occurs in others.



Well, that's just not true.

The earliest vertebrates do appear in the Cambrian. But there are certainly precursors in the fossil record (hemichordates and basal chordates say hi).

Same thing with eye evolution. The earliest known eyes from the Cambrian bear no resemblance to human eyes. The were compound eyes that didn't even have lenses.

Octopus eyes are very similar to the human eye, and appeared suddenly in the Cambrian.

Other very complex eyes in trilobites appear suddenly and complex, with no precursor eyes existing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Octopus eyes are very similar to the human eye, and appeared suddenly in the Cambrian.

Octopus didn't even exist in the Cambrian. The first true octopus isn't known until the mesozoic some 300 million years later. Even stem cephalopods that gave rise to octopus don't appear until some 200 million years after the Cambrian.

You're just dropping one false statement after another. You should just stop producing false and deceptive information and you should just listen and read.

 

[Frank Robert]

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)

I gave you a hint about quote mining in a previous post

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
"Large Gaps"

Quote #50

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.

Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.

As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)​

Gould then goes on to show that Darwin conflated gradualism with natural selection, and then talks more in point #2 about future work in the field of evolutionary development that yields testable hypothesis for small changes in developmental pathways (corresponding to small evolutionary changes) yielding large changes in adult body plans. Gould states that this is the kind of approach that will give forth real information rather than adaptive stories or hypothetical intermediates. Gould was probably not exactly a 'visionary' for proposing this in print, but evolutionary developmental biology seems to be giving plenty of support to the theory of evolution these days.

- Deanne (Lilith) Taylor​

 

[driewerf]

What exactly has "been proven by science"? And who makes that claim? Go come with some specifics.

What exactly has been falsified? Show us that faslification? Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.

Except it does.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, published an article in the January 1979 issue of the museum's journal entitled "Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology" in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.5 The following April, Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter to the author that he didn't know of any real evidence of evolutionary transitions either among living or fossilized organisms.6

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Stephen J. Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pg 127)


Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. (Eugene V. Koonin, “The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transitions in Evolution,” Biology Direct 2 (2007).)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Francis Hitching).

I asked you What exactly has been falsified? And i asked to show us that falsification. And what did we get? A quote (and probably a quote mine). A quote isn't a falisfication. It isn't a data point.
So go ahead, can you name one of these 250.000 species that doesn't support a modern understanding of the ToE? Can you -- in your own words -- explain how that species doesn't support the ToE? You have 250.000 species at your disposal, you can name one, can't you? And you can explain how it undermines the ToE, can't you. Go ahead, I am going to repeat myself:
Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.

 

[Astrid]

Octopus eyes are very similar to the human eye, and appeared suddenly in the Cambrian.

Other very complex eyes in trilobites appear suddenly and complex, with no precursor eyes existing.

Let's see if you've the character to admit the thing about
Cambrian octopus is false.
If not there is no use to continue any discussiom.

 

[chad kincham]

It's amazing how Creationists continue to quote mine stephen J gould time and time again. And same with this other quote above:

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." -Dr. Collin Patterson.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as 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."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes


This is all just more young earth Creationist dishonesty.

In fact, Eldredge and Gould actually did support allopatric speciation as a means of evolution that would produce evidence as we see in the fossil record. To say that they didn't believe that transitional fossils exist is really just false and anyone who actually reads either of their works knows this quite well (as opposed to reading YEC quote mines).

That’s just spin and not true.

It's amazing how Creationists continue to quote mine stephen J gould time and time again. And same with this other quote above:

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false." -Dr. Collin Patterson.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as 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."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes


This is all just more young earth Creationist dishonesty.

In fact, Eldredge and Gould actually did support allopatric speciation as a means of evolution that would produce evidence as we see in the fossil record. To say that they didn't believe that transitional fossils exist is really just false and anyone who actually reads either of their works knows this quite well (as opposed to reading YEC quote mines).

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as 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."

Except that’s not what he said, originally- ever hear of spin?


"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradulaism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connectign together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.
"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never `seen' in the rocks.
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the process we profess to study." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's erratic pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp.12-16, May 1977)

Let's see if you've the character to admit the thing about
Cambrian octopus is false.
If not there is no use to continue any discussiom.

Let's see if you've the character to admit the thing about
Cambrian octopus is false.
If not there is no use to continue any discussiom.

Big deal. I was going by memory from many years back..

It’s the squid that suddenly appeared in the Cambrian explosion, with eyes that are very similar to the human eye, not an octopus.

 

[chad kincham]

I asked you What exactly has been falsified? And i asked to show us that falsification. And what did we get? A quote (and probably a quote mine). A quote isn't a falisfication. It isn't a data point.
So go ahead, can you name one of these 250.000 species that doesn't support a modern understanding of the ToE? Can you -- in your own words -- explain how that species doesn't support the ToE? You have 250.000 species at your disposal, you can name one, can't you? And you can explain how it undermines the ToE, can't you. Go ahead, I am going to repeat myself:
Don't be shy on specifics, don't be shy on details.

The dearth of transitional fossils in all the important places, falsifies Darwinian phyletic gradualism.

And PE doesn’t work in reality, to explain lack of transitional fossils, because wildlife biologist who work with endangered species, know that isolated populations lose genetic diversity and information- they do not gain it, which was the hypothesis of Gould and Eldridge that isolated populations evolve so fast they leave behind no fossils.

Homochirality falsifies abiogenesis In every type prebiotic environment

The appearance of organic compounds and amino acids in too weak concentrations to bind together in every prebiotic scenario , falsifies abiogenesis.

Researchers use purified compounds 100 times more concentrated than are found in nature, because of this.

 

[driewerf]

The dearth of transitional fossils in all the important places, falsifies Darwinian phyletic gradualism.

And PE doesn’t work in reality, to explain lack of transitional fossils, because wildlife biologist who work with endangered species, know that isolated populations lose genetic diversity and information- they do not gain it, which was the hypothesis of Gould and Eldridge that isolated populations evolve so fast they leave behind no fossils.

Homochirality falsifies abiogenesis In every type prebiotic environment

The appearance of organic compounds and amino acids in too weak concentrations to bind together in every prebiotic scenario , falsifies abiogenesis.

Researchers use purified compounds 100 times more concentrated than are found in nature, because of this.

So you can't even name one single of the 250.000 species you bragged about.

 

[chad kincham]

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

I didn’t start doing this yesterday.

PE originated to explain away the lack of fossils in all the important places, but not being a wildlife biologist, he was ignorant of the fact that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information- they don’t gain it.

Thus rapid evolution of isolated populations cannot occur.

 

[chad kincham]

Octopus didn't even exist in the Cambrian. The first true octopus isn't known until the mesozoic some 300 million years later. Even stem cephalopods that gave rise to octopus don't appear until some 200 million years after the Cambrian.

You're just dropping one false statement after another. You should just stop producing false and deceptive information and you should just listen and read.

Wrong. My memory from researching the Cambrian explosion many years ago, used the octopus instead of the squid.

The squid appears suddenly in the Cambrian explosion with an eye very similar to the complex human eye, with no precursors in existence, just as vertebrates appear suddenly.

The layer below the Cambrian has only worm-like creatures.
Honest evolutionists admit that is very problematic for them.

 

[chad kincham]

I gave you a hint about quote mining in a previous post

The Quote Mine Project
Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines
"Large Gaps"

Quote #50

This is a rather unspectacularly predictable mined quote, as everyone who has had a few hours exposure to Gould's writings on evolution can instantly see that he's arguing against gradualism and probably in favor of punctuated equilibrium, a theory that he co-originated with Eldredge in 1972. Contrary to possible first impressions of the uninformed, Gould is presenting a problem FOR gradualist evolution, and countering WITH solutions to this apparent "problem" later in the paragraph.

And, in typical quote-mining style, this sentence has been taken out of its natural ecosystem. In this section of the paper, Gould is outlining the challenge to gradualist models of macroevolution in three loosely united themes. He is not challenging evolution itself nor is he discounting the vast wealth of fossil data that already exists.

Therefore, someone unfamiliar with Gould who would read the quote alone, above, who does not understand Gould's argument in the paper nor his scientific history will not realize he's just questioning gradualism as a theory of evolutionary change, and not realize he's simultaneously proposing a better idea of evolutionary change to fit the observed data.

As far as the paper goes, the quote above is actually from point #2 in his argument, and you'll have to see the full context to see where it's been selectively snipped. Here's the full context, starting with his point #2 but not encompassing the entire section #2 (which goes on in the same vein a while longer).

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)​

Gould then goes on to show that Darwin conflated gradualism with natural selection, and then talks more in point #2 about future work in the field of evolutionary development that yields testable hypothesis for small changes in developmental pathways (corresponding to small evolutionary changes) yielding large changes in adult body plans. Gould states that this is the kind of approach that will give forth real information rather than adaptive stories or hypothetical intermediates. Gould was probably not exactly a 'visionary' for proposing this in print, but evolutionary developmental biology seems to be giving plenty of support to the theory of evolution these days.

- Deanne (Lilith) Taylor​

Too bad for you that I remember wha was said originally by Gould, and it wasn’t what his later spin stated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn’t start doing this yesterday.

PE originated to explain away the lack of fossils in all the important places, but not being a wildlife biologist, he was ignorant of the fact that isolated populations lose diversity and genetic information- they don’t gain it.

Thus rapid evolution of isolated populations cannot occur.

You do not seem to understand that many more fossils have been found since the time that PE was proposed. It is still a well accepted hypothesis, that there are periods of very rapid evolution, and it is now supported by transitional fossils.

Of course part of the problem is the denial of science by creationists. They cannot afford to understand the concept of scientific evidence, nor can they afford to understand the concept of transitional species either.

Of course when transitional fossils are provided then creationists demand to see transitionals between the transitionals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too bad for you that I remember wha was said originally by Gould, and it wasn’t what his later spin stated.

Actually you did quote mine him.

Do you not know what a quote mine is? The spin comes from the quote miners.

 

[Gene2memE]

Wrong. My memory from researching the Cambrian explosion many years ago, used the octopus instead of the squid.

The squid appears suddenly in the Cambrian explosion with an eye very similar to the complex human eye, with no precursors in existence, just as vertebrates appear suddenly.

You might want to brush up on your research, because none of that it correct.

Hint, the appearance of "complex" eyes pre-date the Cambrian.
Second hint, squid didn't exist in the Cambrian - some cephalopod ancestor species can be traced to the late Cambrian.

The layer below the Cambrian has only worm-like creatures.
Honest evolutionists admit that is very problematic for them.

Spriggina, Marywadea and Kimberella are annoyed at you right now.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wrong. My memory from researching the Cambrian explosion many years ago, used the octopus instead of the squid.

I don't really care what you think you remember from research years ago, octopus didn't exist in the Cambrian.

If you think otherwise, provide a source or admit that you're wrong.

Your arrogance and ignorance is off the charts right now.

 

[SelfSim]

Homochirality falsifies abiogenesis In every type prebiotic environment

Bogus claim. Numerous natural mechanisms are known to exist. (Here's one of em).

The appearance of organic compounds and amino acids in too weak concentrations to bind together in every prebiotic scenario , falsifies abiogenesis.

Bogus claim. Researchers vary the concentration (see figures 2A and 2B) of reactants to observe net effects ... the result doesn't impact the prebiotic chemical abiogenesis impacts.

Researchers use purified compounds 100 times more concentrated than are found in nature, because of this.

Bogus claim.