Evolution or Darwin?

[orogenicman]

First cite: Natural History, 86:12-16

Second cite: "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

His point was that it doesn't exist at the first cite.

You dipped, ducked and dodged. But - you're always "honest."

Doesn't it pique your interest why our friend argues about the location of the quote but not the truth of same?

Now....why is that?


Because Gould actually verifies exactly what I've been saying....and you members of the religion of Darwinism fear the truth.



After all.....what would it mean if my premise is correct?




OMG! I almost advised you to 'think for yourself'!!!

That'd be like advising a whale to fly!!!!

Doesn't everyone else find it interesting that our queen bee continues this Gould charade despite being handed her hat on the issue by different posters in several different threads? Gould himself, as she well knows, was puzzled as to why creationists would latch onto these out of context quotes and misquotes, since he was himself a dedicated scientist who was thoroughly committed to the theory of evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Natural History, 86:12-16" - politicalchic

The quote does not exist at that cite.


"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...." - steven_r

This is the truth, it doesn't exist AS CITED.

"You found no such thing." - politicalchic

This makes you a liar. He did find a quote of yours that didn't exist AS CITED, just like he said.

And to solidify your fail, you properly cited it posts later. Nice try though, liar. Wipe that smear off your chin, now.

I never lie.
But you do....right in this post.

The quote was correct....now you're doing everything a dunce like you can to pretend you don't have to deal with the import.




Still afraid to deal with the quote?

That's the proof I need.

The citation was incorrect.

The citation.

Not the quote, the cite.

Dipshit.

And it was, and you lied.

Too bad your vocabulary didn't include the word 'cite.'


But then.....there are so very many you don't know.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So that's your fall back position? You throw a bunch of quotes at me and when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited (the first one and only one I looked for by the way), you throw a bunch more at me without citations. The onus is on you to provide credible sources, and to check them before presenting them, not on me to make sure you're right.

Neverminding that, you sidestepped the question. If the sources you're cutting and pasting from can't even get a simple citation right, what makes you think anything else they put forward is correct or accurate?

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

 

[orogenicman]

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

Well, none of that is correct.

 

[orogenicman]

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

Wow, talk about moving the goalpost. Considering how many times you must have pissed your pants in one day indicates that it might be worth investigating the prospect of buying stock in Depends.

 

[Steven_R]

"....when I find one of them doesn't even exist as cited...."

You found no such thing.

It exists exactly as quoted.

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

It does not exist in Natural History, Vol. 86, pages 12-16. That citation you provided as proof of Gould supporting whatever you're blathering about does not exist as such. Now, we both know you didn't come up with the citation on your own, so wherever you copied it from has some credibility issues arising from this citation. Either they are sloppy researchers or just made up the citation, or you did it.

 

[abu afak]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

 

[orogenicman]

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

It does not exist in Natural History, Vol. 86, pages 12-16. That citation you provided as proof of Gould supporting whatever you're blathering about does not exist as such. Now, we both know you didn't come up with the citation on your own, so wherever you copied it from has some credibility issues arising from this citation. Either they are sloppy researchers or just made up the citation, or you did it.

She is incapable of making up anything. All she can do is copy and paste from some creatard web site. Which makes her not much more than a creationbot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, it doesn't. I even posted a link to multiple versions of accessing Vol. 86 of Natural History, as scans, as PDF, as text. Pages 12-16 of Vol. 86 does not include the text you say it does. If it exists, it isn't where you said it is (or where you cut and pasted said it would be).

Now, either your source is wrong because they are sloppy or your source is wrong because they deliberately made up the citation. Which is it? And if your source can't even get a simple citation correct what makes you think anything else you parrot would be correct?

Here is an actual 'charade'.....you pretend the quotation doesn't exist....

...but it does.

See if you can connect these two 'dots.'

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



And you say????

It does not exist in Natural History, Vol. 86, pages 12-16. That citation you provided as proof of Gould supporting whatever you're blathering about does not exist as such. Now, we both know you didn't come up with the citation on your own, so wherever you copied it from has some credibility issues arising from this citation. Either they are sloppy researchers or just made up the citation, or you did it.

I love it!



The quote is accurate....as is Darwin's.


But you'll tapdance as fast as you can to avoid the obvious conclusion: Darwinian evolution is false.


But my interest is in how you folks will run from this truth as though it was some insult to a family member, and admission would ruin your entire life!


Fascinating.



Now....I know the reason.....

....bet you don't even realize the truth about yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Evolution is a fact

God is a theory

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

Nonsense.

And this is a total falsehood:
"The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence."


1. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.


2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


What is it with you guys....this fear of the truth.



BTW....in the Field paper in 'Science,' the abstract includes "Representatives of 22 classes in 10 animal phyla were used to infer phylogenetic relationships,...."


The lack of actual evidence, which you incorrectly suggested exists, always requires terms such as "infer."
Your post proves same.



And gravity vs evolution?

"Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution."
Berlinski



Now....you're not going to get mad just because I insulted your secular religion....are you?

 

[abu afak]

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

Nonsense.

And this is a total falsehood:
"The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence."
1. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." [/B]
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.
What is it with you guys....this fear of the truth.
BTW....in the Field paper in 'Science,' the abstract includes "Representatives of 22 classes in 10 animal phyla were used to infer phylogenetic relationships,...."
The lack of actual evidence, which you incorrectly suggested exists, always requires terms such as "infer."
Your post proves same.
And gravity vs evolution?
"Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution."
Berlinski
Now....you're not going to get mad just because I insulted your secular religion....are you?

1. I compressed Your Retarded Giant-spaced post for readability.
your practice of Putting 3 or 4 spacing lines in for the ILLUSION of Volume/Substance didn't work

2. You are utterly and transparently NONconversant on this topic.
You didn't answer my post, just pickd a sentence to match what you Thought you had in your little goofy book/creationist website.
Your posts are a JOKE, using Idiotic Snippets. Out of context for people who do believe in evolution or even more moronic quotes from those who don't.

3. Should you be able to coherently answer my reasoning with your own ignorant gibrish THAT would be miraculous/Impossible, as we Both/All know.

4. Google 'Appeal to Authority Fallacy'.
Of course, you're quoting them so briefly, you don't rate even a full fallacy.

5. I'd like a source/LINK for the OP quotes/idea/recitation so we can see where you got them and if, especially in the OP, your Plagiarizing HOW (sequence etc) they re used.
Quotes Can be generic, but Not if they are used the same way/length/order as someone else has to make a point.

`

 

[orogenicman]

There is zero evidence that animals have ever evolved from one species into an entirely new ( or 2) species.

The only evidence for evolution is WITHIN a species.

That's False, Of Course.
The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence.
IOW, we didn't jump from amoebas to primates overnight and more complex/evolved species are predictably, found in Later Strata.
Then of course there's DNA regression analysis and a myriad of other things including Vestiges of what were once tail bones on .. Us.

"Theory", in Scientific usage is a Well established set of facts, not mere conjecture. Gravity is a Theory, there's Atomic Theory, The Theory of Relativity, etc.

Evolution has plenty or EVIDENCE, including every new science that has emerged over time. Carbon/Isotopic Dating, DNA regression analysis, etc.; all Serve to Confirm it.
'God/S' has/have NO Evidence.
'God/S' does not rise to 'Theory' in the scientific sense. 'God/S' is/are Myth/Superstition/Faith.

Partisan Hack Creationists don't understand ANY of the Theories, but object to one because it contradicts their creation MYTH.
-

Nonsense.

And this is a total falsehood:
"The Fossil Record not only includes Intermediate species, (and predictable/predictED ones for the Reason OF evolution) but contain the fossils In chronological Sequence."

1. "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla."
Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

Perhaps you should read the entire paper:

http://www2.nau.edu/~bio222-c/Reserve Reading/RR1/Field_1988.pdf

2. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

Kenyon is a creationist, and his affidavit is meaningless, since the Supreme Court ruled against the State of Louisiana by declaring creationism a religious belief, the teaching of which is not allowed in public schools.

 

[Steven_R]

Perhaps you should read the entire paper:

why do that? It's far more productive to cherry pick for specific statements that mean nothing without context and surrounding statements to hang it off of. I mean, who wants to actually see the point the authors were trying to make when it muddies the waters by making proponents of evolution sound like they are attacking their own position by providing gotcha moments?

I'm almost at the point where I think PC is just playing a cdesign proponentist to keep people riled up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps you should read the entire paper:

why do that? It's far more productive to cherry pick for specific statements that mean nothing without context and surrounding statements to hang it off of. I mean, who wants to actually see the point the authors were trying to make when it muddies the waters by making proponents of evolution sound like they are attacking their own position by providing gotcha moments?

I'm almost at the point where I think PC is just playing a cdesign proponentist to keep people riled up.

Just proving that you Darwin-as-religion folks can't deal with things like this:

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."



Gotcha....don't I.

 

[G.T.]

lol @ quote mining and thinking it's your "smoking gun." wowza

 

[G.T.]

Never mind that Gould studied this his entire life and believed in evolution (which, as a sidebar - - - is not something you "believe in," it's something you "know), no, never mind that.

We have an internetz poster who is not 1/ 1,000th as qualified to speak on the subject thinking that a cherry-picked Gould quote destroys evolution!



Good one! You're a genius! Don't let them tell you different!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never mind that Gould studied this his entire life and believed in evolution (which, as a sidebar - - - is not something you "believe in," it's something you "know), no, never mind that.

We have an internetz poster who is not 1/ 1,000th as qualified to speak on the subject thinking that a cherry-picked Gould quote destroys evolution!



Good one! You're a genius! Don't let them tell you different!

Just proving that you Darwin-as-religion folks can't deal with things like this:

1. . "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


Wow.....Charles Darwin said that the sudden appearance of species would be " the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."


Darwin.



Then there is the quotation that you are so afraid of, you pretend that it doesn't exist.....

2. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
Stephen Jay Gould
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


....and found here:
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology



Wow....Darwinism's fatal flaw documented!

"....a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed."

 

[G.T.]

hey, we've got streeeeeetch Armstrong over here e'rrbody!

 

[PoliticalChic]

hey, we've got streeeeeetch Armstrong over here e'rrbody!

Hey....you ignored the facts!


What a surprise.