On The Disparity of Species

[PoliticalChic]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:




1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.




2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

3. The vocabulary used herein is precise: 'disparity' refers to major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders.

a. The term 'diversity' is a way to refer to minor differences, but may be seen in genera or species.

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

 

[Spoonman]

while i believe evolution exists, we all did not evolve from a common ancestor. we change within our own species, but we didn't start out as a bug or a plant. and oly man has developed to the level man has. as the bible describes to rule and control the other species. there was a higher order of design applied here, more than chance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

while i believe evolution exists, we all did not evolve from a common ancestor. we change within our own species, but we didn't start out as a bug or a plant. and oly man has developed to the level man has. as the bible describes to rule and control the other species. there was a higher order of design applied here, more than chance.

By 'evolution,' you mean organisms changing over time due to accumulation of random changes....finally resulting in new species, different enough so that they no longer interbreed with the 'evolved' species.....


It sure is a neat idea.

And, if we disallow any idea of an outside force....some sort of teleological explanation....then Darwin's theory sounds pretty darn good.


Problem is....there is no proof of the theory.

Not in nature...not in the laboratory....has one species been shown to evolve into another.

So....what to base belief in Darwinian evolution on?


“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”
Hebrews 11.1

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.

When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.

Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.

Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.

 

[Hollie]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.

When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.

Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.

Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.

This is at least the fourth thread wherein PC has been corrected for her parsed, phony, out of context "quotes" and bald-faced lies.

Most of her "quotes" are cut and pasted from Harun Yahya. I even offered (for a fee), to review her false "quotes" before they were dumped into various threads and shown to be lies.

Yet, she persists.

I even suggested she review the typical creationist lies she posts with reference here:Quote Mine Project: Examining 'Evolution Quotes' of Creationists

as so many of here lies have long ago been debunked.

Yet, she persists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.

When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.

Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.

Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.

1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."

What is it you have....ADD?
That's exactly what the OP says...
"One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position,


2. "You are quoting Gould out of context."
This seems to be the prepared fib from your side.

And...it reveals your ignorance of Gould's work.
OK....I'll teach you: Gould admitted that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution. His fix was the Marxian view of punctuated equilibrium....species popped up all at once, without a trail in the fossil record.

That is why some others have called Gould an 'accidental creationist'...
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO



3. "There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves."

The only thing that is simple....is you.

The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?
Don't understand....no sudden macroevolved organisms could survive!!!
Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.





Let's be honest.....you are clueless.

 

[Hollie]

The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start (examining evolution), and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science---or of any honest intellectual inquiry.

Stephen Jay Gould, Bully for Brontosaurus, 1990, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996

 

[longknife]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

 

[Sunni Man]

It takes far more 'Faith' to believe in evolution than it does to believe in religion. .

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

Perhaps.....

...but that isn't the point of the OP.


The point is to expose the weaknesses of Darwin's theory as science.


Then, hopefully, the more intelligent folks will ask why it is advanced and endorsed so fervently in academia.

And I have the answer to that query.

 

[Hollie]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

Perhaps.....

...but that isn't the point of the OP.


The point is to expose the weaknesses of Darwin's theory as science.


Then, hopefully, the more intelligent folks will ask why it is advanced and endorsed so fervently in academia.

And I have the answer to that query.

Evolutionary theory is widely supported among the relevant science community in spite of the attempts by religious zealots to undermine it.

 

[itfitzme]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.



It's all about faith.

More stupidity from the Ann Coulter wanna-be, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and what research is.

 

[itfitzme]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

Right up there with Scientology and god.

 

[Sunni Man]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.



It's all about faith.

More stupidity from the Ann Coulter wanna-be, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and what research is.

Shouldn't you be attending an Obama worship service or a Gay Pride Parade. .

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.



It's all about faith.

More stupidity from the Ann Coulter wanna-be, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and what research is.

I just love how the real dopes throw around terms they've heard, but don't understand....

...that would be you, posting 'scientific method.'


Threre has been zero...like your IQ....testing that resulted in the formation of a new species such as Darwin posited in his theory.



David Berlinski states:
There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.”

What these experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."



Get it, you imbecile?

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

Right up there with Scientology and god.

You are far too stupid to realize it, but your post is one more example of the connection between Darwin's theory and atheism.

Thanks for helping out.

 

[Hollie]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.



It's all about faith.

More stupidity from the Ann Coulter wanna-be, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and what research is.

I just love how the real dopes throw around terms they've heard, but don't understand....

...that would be you, posting 'scientific method.'


Threre has been zero...like your IQ....testing that resulted in the formation of a new species such as Darwin posited in his theory.



David Berlinski states:
There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.

More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.

"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. “Important issues about selection,” he remarked with some understatement, “remain unresolved.”

What these experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."



Get it, you imbecile?

Ah, yes.

"Quote-mining" from David Berlinski. Another ID'iot creationist whose non-existent career has landed him in Desolation Row at the Disco'tute.



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for berlinski

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

 

[Hollie]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

Right up there with Scientology and god.

You are far too stupid to realize it, but your post is one more example of the connection between Darwin's theory and atheism.

Thanks for helping out.

Of course, there is no connection between Darwin's theory and atheism.

Your years of study at Harun Yahya have made you only more pompous and just a bit less interesting than the pedestrian bible thumper.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are two problems with a thread like this. Nobody is ever going to change the minds of those who believe in Darwinism.

And nobody is going to change the mind of those believing in Creationism.

Here is my theory on Common Sensionism - In its early stages of cooling, this planet was terra formed and, using clearly known scientific actions, prepared in stages for the evolution of a thinking, adaptive creature. So, we were "created" by scientists in some lab somewhere and transported to this planet to evolve along clearly delineated guidelines.

How's that stand up folks?

In light of modern genetics? Really stupid.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.


One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position, i.e., that evidence for Darwinian evolution is lacking.
As follows:

The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

Get that? The earlier strata do not include evolutionary 'attempts' leading to the new species!





4. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Note the reference to 'disparate in body form.')

a. " First, a question of origins: How could so much anatomical variety evolve so quickly? In particular, must novel evolutionary mechanisms [that means mechanisms contrary to those that Darwin proposed] be proposed for such a burst of activity?

Second, a question of consequences: How many distinct lineages arose in the Cambrian explosion? How many survived to leave modern organisms as descendants? Why have no new animal phyla (with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" Conway-Morris and Gould, "Showdown on the Burgess Shale" 1998


b. Gould goes on to say that there is no answer to the query:" The question of origins: I devoted only a few pages to this fascinating topic in Wonderful Life because so little meaningful evidence exists, and fruitful science must be defined by palpable and potentially decisive data, not by our subjective sense of intrigue or importance."

Gould...who supports 'evolution,' admits that he can't point to evidence for same!
Darwin: a theory without evidence.






5. It is important to study the above, as Gould is a recognized authority on the subject, and because he is honest to state that " because so little meaningful evidence exists,..."

a. Compare this attitude of an expert to the catty and vituperative posts by the ignorant, the anti-science, the rabid Darwinism-as-a -religion folks. They love-love-love Darwinism....and hate the fact that there is no evidence for same.
That's why they get so angry.....







6. I have asked several times why they find it so difficult to recognize that Darwin's theory may not be the answer to evolution.

Here, from Richard Dawkins, English ethologist, evolutionary biologist....and strident atheist, is the real answer as to why they are so wedded to it:

"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


Really funny, in an ironic sort of way.....they despise religion....yet apply it's methodology to their belief in Darwin.

It's all about faith.

You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.

There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.

When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.

Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.

Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.

1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."

What is it you have....ADD?
That's exactly what the OP says...
"One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position,


2. "You are quoting Gould out of context."
This seems to be the prepared fib from your side.

And...it reveals your ignorance of Gould's work.
OK....I'll teach you: Gould admitted that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution. His fix was the Marxian view of punctuated equilibrium....species popped up all at once, without a trail in the fossil record.

That is why some others have called Gould an 'accidental creationist'...
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO



3. "There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves."

The only thing that is simple....is you.

The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?
Don't understand....no sudden macroevolved organisms could survive!!!
Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.





Let's be honest.....you are clueless.

I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.

I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.

Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.

They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads.