Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Here is what Gould had to say about it.

"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.
i have the above on my hard drive.

Transitionals between larger groups are abundant. Perhaps you should learn what PE is before lecturing us on it.

a couple of problems here.
first i ask you what you meant by "at the species level".

second, it was niles himself that said it, and it was a evolutionist that reported he said it.
these discontinuaties are throughout the record, in the science article i mentioned, there is no mention about "species" or "larger groups".
this was confirmed by ayala, not only in the science article, but also in a paper authored by gould and sepkoski. (and of course in the article referencing niles)

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
a couple of problems here.
first i ask you what you meant by "at the species level".

It means between species. For example, Homo is the genus we belong to, and sapiens is the species.

second, it was niles himself that said it, and it was a evolutionist that reported he said it.

Niles and Stephen are the co-discoverers of punctuated equilibria. All it requires is stronger selective pressures at the edge of a range, and then replacement of the parental form in the middle of the range. It is entirely Darwinian.

these discontinuaties are throughout the record, in the science article i mentioned, there is no mention about "species" or "larger groups".

Niles and Stephens explained why Darwinian evolution would produce those discontinuities in the geologic record. Heck, even Darwin explained it.

"One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree."--Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html

That is one of the mechanisms of punctuated equilibria.

The mistake you seem to be making is in believing that a single geologic formation is a reliable record for the entire globe and for all time.

this was confirmed by ayala, not only in the science article, but also in a paper authored by gould and sepkoski. (and of course in the article referencing niles)

We have already been over that multiple times. Why are you still using it?

RickG · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
The mistake you (whois) seem to be making is in believing that a single geologic formation is a reliable record for the entire globe and for all time.

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
We have already been over that multiple times. Why are you still using it?

simply because no one except an anti religious agenda site has provided any evidence to the contrary.
in the paper i mention by sepkoski, it was mentioned in reference to goulds comments at the conference.
that's why.
gould would never allow this quote, or even use it, if he knew it wasn't correct.

sfs · Jul 30, 2015

pat34lee said:
But the idea that adding energy to a system would help anything is funny.
Adding energy only increases disorder unless and until you have a way to convert it to a useful form, and a design to follow.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
simply because no one except an anti religious agenda site has provided any evidence to the contrary.

Ayala said himself that he was misquoted. Why isn't that good enough for you?

in the paper i mention by sepkoski, it was mentioned in reference to goulds comments at the conference.
that's why.
gould would never allow this quote, or even use it, if he knew it wasn't correct.

You make tons of assumptions. Why don't you directly quote Gould?

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Ayala said himself that he was misquoted. Why isn't that good enough for you?

well, like i said, no one except an anti religious agenda site has ever provided evidence to the contrary.
of all the mail science received about this article, none referenced ayala and what he said.

Why don't you directly quote Gould?

i'll do even better, here's the entire paper:
see upload.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
well, like i said, no one except an anti religious agenda site has ever provided evidence to the contrary.

It was AYALA who produced the evidence. HE DIRECTLY SAID THAT HE NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. Why is that not good enough for you?

i'll do even better, here's the entire paper:
see upload.

That isn't better. I asked for a direct quote from Gould. That paper was written by Sepkoski. Do you know what a direct quote is?

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
That isn't better. I asked for a direct quote from Gould. That paper was written by Sepkoski. Do you know what a direct quote is?

why? so you can accuse me of quote mining?
no thanks, read the quote in context please.

BTW, that paper was written by 2 people, sepkoski and gould.
gould was at the very same conference as ayala.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
why? so you can accuse me of quote mining?

Supply something that Gould wrote with a link to the entire paper. Why can't you do this?

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Supply something that Gould wrote with a link to the entire paper. Why can't you do this?

i did, in context, i'm sorry if you don't want to read it.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
i did, in context, i'm sorry if you don't want to read it.

That was written by Sepkoski, not Gould.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

Let's see what Gould himself says.

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons—geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_leviathan.html

whois · Jul 30, 2015

Loudmouth said:
That was written by Sepkoski, not Gould.

wrong.
it was written by both of them.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

"Some discoveries in science are exiting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_leviathan.html

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
wrong.
it was written by both of them.

Sepkoski is the only author on the paper. It's right there under the title.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

" For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

"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 am—for I have become a major target of these practices."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

whois · Jul 30, 2015

you know, i really can't help it it you, and others, refuse to read the material i upload.
i presented it, and i believe it's an objective assessment.

Loudmouth · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
you know, i really can't help it it you, and others, refuse to read the material i upload.
i presented it, and i believe it's an objective assessment.

And we have shown you why your beliefs are wrong.

Given the Gould quotes above, would you say that Gould believes that there are transitional fossils?

bhsmte · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
you know, i really can't help it it you, and others, refuse to read the material i upload.
i presented it, and i believe it's an objective assessment.

That's ok, you are just wrong.

Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

rational

Contributor

Senior Veteran

rational

Senior Member

Contributor

rational

Attachments

Contributor

rational

Contributor

rational

Contributor

Contributor

rational

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

rational

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency