On The Disparity of Species

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic has started ANOTHER STRING (at lest QUADRUPLE in fact) on the SAME TOPIC using the SAME REFUTED Material

....
So....what is your opinion of Darwin's thesis of random mutations which accumulate and lead, gradually to speciation?
That is the question....not whether or not the theory of evolution is closer to the truth than a religious one.
And....if Darwin was incorrect, what to make of Gould's thesis which claims a sudden, fully formed new species.
Those are the questions that my OPs expressed.
Bringing religion in is the side-step of the Darwinists.

You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it.

"sudden" in geologic terms could be Tens/Hundreds of Thousands, or even Millions of Yeas. It is NOT a creation event.

GOULD Himself

"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened.
We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of Evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists Pervert and Caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire Creationist program includes Little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.

Despite this YOU use/ABUSE Gould as supporting you.
You know this, I have posted it often, yet You still LIE and Mislead.

Your posts are [always] Intentionally DISHONEST in this respect.
You try to jump on Uncontexted, Seemingly contradictory, snippets that are NOT so.
YOU LIE Hourly.
YOU MISLEAD in the name of Christ/Religion.
If there is a god he would be Appalled at your persistently Dishonest posts.

`

"You KNOW full well that Gould HIMSELF believes in Darwinian evolution and obviously Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it."


I think you need another beating.
Here goes:



Darwin: gradual changes due to an accumulation of random mutations.
Gould: sudden rapid species formation with no precursors.


Now I have to teach 'em English as well as science.


grad·u·al
ˈgrajo͞oəl/Submit
adjective
1.
taking place or progressing slowly or by degrees.
"the gradual introduction of new methods"
synonyms: slow, measured, unhurried, cautious;


sud·den
ˈsədn/Submit
adjective
1.
occurring or done quickly and unexpectedly or without warning.
"a sudden bright flash"
synonyms: unexpected, unforeseen, unanticipated, unlooked-for;



"Punctuated Equilibrium does NOT contradict it."
Yeah, it does, you dope.



Gould was a Marxist....and just as Marx loved Darwin's theory, he felt obligated to defend it.
So he made up 'Punctuated Equilibrium'...which means long periods with no evolution....then sudden species formation.


Wanna know how he came up with the idea?
From Karl Marx's theory of history.....long periods of suffering by workers, then...bingo! A revolution.
Evolution as revolution!
'Punctuated Equilibrium' as human history!




How ya' feel now, boyyyyeeeeee????

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if we didn't evolve, then where did we come from?

I might address that question at some future date.....

...for now, the question is whether or not Darwin was correct.


He wasn't.



Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did?


The fear is almost palpable.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

See that, Jakal.....

I just wrote this to deanie...

"Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did?
The fear is almost palpable."


And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.'


So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist.


Never mind....I know.

 

[PredFan]

The poor, poor Darwinists......time and evidence are working against them.....Darwin's theory has been disproven, even taking his own words into account.



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

a. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...






2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

3. 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

a. Gould felt the necessity to rescue evolution, and Darwin, if he could. So...he declared that the sudden appearance of new, fully-formed species was perfectly compatible with Darwin's theory. Of course, this is nonsense: it is the exact opposite.

b. Steven J. Gould reported:
"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."
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182







4. But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!
" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Poor, poor Darwin.





5. Even from Time magazine:
"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing.

But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion





6. And yet the Darwinian fanatics make it a personal crusade to pillory any who explain that Darwin's theory just doesn't make it, and is annihilated by the facts, the facts that Darwin himself explained would be fatal to his theory.






7. "Various studies conclude that a well-sized slice of the American public doubts “evolution”. If that is true, I don’t find it too surprising coming from an American society that descends from revolutionaries who were skeptical of establishments. We could easily be wary of scientific or academic as well as political and religious establishments, if any start looking authoritarian enough.

But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that,
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities





Time to throw in the towel, Darwinists.

Yeah PC I normally agree with you so please don't hold your breath until Darwinism goes away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The poor, poor Darwinists......time and evidence are working against them.....Darwin's theory has been disproven, even taking his own words into account.



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

a. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...






2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

3. 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

a. Gould felt the necessity to rescue evolution, and Darwin, if he could. So...he declared that the sudden appearance of new, fully-formed species was perfectly compatible with Darwin's theory. Of course, this is nonsense: it is the exact opposite.

b. Steven J. Gould reported:
"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."
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182







4. But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!
" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Poor, poor Darwin.





5. Even from Time magazine:
"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing.

But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion





6. And yet the Darwinian fanatics make it a personal crusade to pillory any who explain that Darwin's theory just doesn't make it, and is annihilated by the facts, the facts that Darwin himself explained would be fatal to his theory.






7. "Various studies conclude that a well-sized slice of the American public doubts “evolution”. If that is true, I don’t find it too surprising coming from an American society that descends from revolutionaries who were skeptical of establishments. We could easily be wary of scientific or academic as well as political and religious establishments, if any start looking authoritarian enough.

But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that,
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities





Time to throw in the towel, Darwinists.

Yeah PC I normally agree with you so please don't hold your breath until Darwinism goes away.

No prob.

All I'm asking is that you take a look at the OP and tell me if there are any errors.

 

[Hollie]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

See that, Jakal.....

I just wrote this to deanie...

"Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did?
The fear is almost palpable."


And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.'


So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist.


Never mind....I know.

Scriptural Evidence: Dinos in the Bible

Scriptural Evidence: Dinos in the Bible | Genesis Park

 

[PredFan]

The poor, poor Darwinists......time and evidence are working against them.....Darwin's theory has been disproven, even taking his own words into account.



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

a. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...






2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!

3. 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

a. Gould felt the necessity to rescue evolution, and Darwin, if he could. So...he declared that the sudden appearance of new, fully-formed species was perfectly compatible with Darwin's theory. Of course, this is nonsense: it is the exact opposite.

b. Steven J. Gould reported:
"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."
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182







4. But...it gets worse. Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!
" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)

Poor, poor Darwin.





5. Even from Time magazine:
"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing.

But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion





6. And yet the Darwinian fanatics make it a personal crusade to pillory any who explain that Darwin's theory just doesn't make it, and is annihilated by the facts, the facts that Darwin himself explained would be fatal to his theory.






7. "Various studies conclude that a well-sized slice of the American public doubts “evolution”. If that is true, I don’t find it too surprising coming from an American society that descends from revolutionaries who were skeptical of establishments. We could easily be wary of scientific or academic as well as political and religious establishments, if any start looking authoritarian enough.

But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable – and questioning it is virtually a crime.

When Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen’s criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that,
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”
Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities





Time to throw in the towel, Darwinists.

Yeah PC I normally agree with you so please don't hold your breath until Darwinism goes away.

No prob.

All I'm asking is that you take a look at the OP and tell me if there are any errors.

Can I get the Reader's Digest version?

My point is that Darwinism isn't going anywhere.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

See that, Jakal.....I just wrote this to deanie..."Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did? The fear is almost palpable." And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.' So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist. Never mind....I know.

PC's delusions and misuse of terms continue.

For those of us who are Christians unafraid of science, we simply shake our heads at the vapidities of our far right reactionary brethren and sisters, and wish them well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

28-7

hmmmpppphhhh

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, I guess it is a good thing that people like PC have places like this to post their nonsense. Because nobody would spend the time on them anywhere else. Other than for a few delusional fundies, the science of evolution was settled when we decoded the DNA that binds all life on Earth together.

 

[PredFan]

Well, I guess it is a good thing that people like PC have places like this to post their nonsense. Because nobody would spend the time on them anywhere else. Other than for a few delusional fundies, the science of evolution was settled when we decoded the DNA that binds all life on Earth together.

No science is EVER settled nit wit! Jeesus I'm embarassed to be on the same side as you here.

Smh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

See that, Jakal.....

I just wrote this to deanie...

"Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did?
The fear is almost palpable."


And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.'


So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist.


Never mind....I know.

Scriptural Evidence: Dinos in the Bible

Scriptural Evidence: Dinos in the Bible | Genesis Park

Nothing here has to do with the Bible.....

...but thanks for bringing that up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah PC I normally agree with you so please don't hold your breath until Darwinism goes away.

No prob.

All I'm asking is that you take a look at the OP and tell me if there are any errors.

Can I get the Reader's Digest version?

My point is that Darwinism isn't going anywhere.

Of course you're wrong.....many have seen the flaws in Darwinism.


My point:
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.”




Consider that, and ask yourself why.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, I guess it is a good thing that people like PC have places like this to post their nonsense. Because nobody would spend the time on them anywhere else. Other than for a few delusional fundies, the science of evolution was settled when we decoded the DNA that binds all life on Earth together.

Lucky for the Left that there are lots of folks who simply accept what they are told and never question, or folks like Obama couldn't have been elected.

That would be you, Rocks, wouldn't it.....on both counts.



So....how often do you fall for the 3-card monte game?

 

[PoliticalChic]

And PC's misrepresentations continue.

Creationism is for "first stories"; evolution is for science.

See that, Jakal.....I just wrote this to deanie..."Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did? The fear is almost palpable." And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.' So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist. Never mind....I know.

PC's delusions and misuse of terms continue.

For those of us who are Christians unafraid of science, we simply shake our heads at the vapidities of our far right reactionary brethren and sisters, and wish them well.

You must be a fraud to write "PC's delusions and misuse of terms continue" as you haven't provided any examples of either.


Are you a fraud, Jakal?


Let's see you put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

 

[007]

So if we didn't evolve, then where did we come from?

You'll find out when you die, and in your case, that can't be soon enough.

 

[007]

See that, Jakal.....I just wrote this to deanie..."Tell me, why is the knee-jerk reaction of both Leftists and Darwinists...if that's not redundant....when any criticism of Darwin appears, to change the subject, as you just did? The fear is almost palpable." And right on cue, you show up with something about 'creationism.' So....which are you, a Leftist or a Darwinist. Never mind....I know.

PC's delusions and misuse of terms continue.

For those of us who are Christians unafraid of science, we simply shake our heads at the vapidities of our far right reactionary brethren and sisters, and wish them well.

You must be a fraud to write "PC's delusions and misuse of terms continue" as you haven't provided any examples of either.

Are you a fraud, Jakal?

Let's see you put your Dinero where you put your dinner.

Don't mind that little leftard gas bag. He's only here to disrupt and insult conservatives, patriots, veterans and Christians.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, I guess it is a good thing that people like PC have places like this to post their nonsense. Because nobody would spend the time on them anywhere else. Other than for a few delusional fundies, the science of evolution was settled when we decoded the DNA that binds all life on Earth together.

No science is EVER settled nit wit! Jeesus I'm embarassed to be on the same side as you here.

Smh.

Glad you mentioned that.

Now, consider the OP in that light.


The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.
Understand this: the discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

Familiar with the 'tree of life' diagram that Darwin included in 'Origin'?

a. "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species (1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.


b. And the point is: The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.



The only way to rescue Darwin's thesis, as Gould attempted to do, is to, as some fool did earlier, is to claim that 'gradual' is the same as 'sudden.'

Pretty much the definition of 'syncretic,' the attempt to reconcile opposing ideas.


Is that your contention?

 

[itfitzme]

Well, I guess it is a good thing that people like PC have places like this to post their nonsense. Because nobody would spend the time on them anywhere else. Other than for a few delusional fundies, the science of evolution was settled when we decoded the DNA that binds all life on Earth together.

No science is EVER settled nit wit! Jeesus I'm embarassed to be on the same side as you here.

Smh.

Glad you mentioned that.

Now, consider the OP in that light.


The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.
Understand this: the discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

Familiar with the 'tree of life' diagram that Darwin included in 'Origin'?

a. "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species (1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.


b. And the point is: The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.



The only way to rescue Darwin's thesis, as Gould attempted to do, is to, as some fool did earlier, is to claim that 'gradual' is the same as 'sudden.'

Pretty much the definition of 'syncretic,' the attempt to reconcile opposing ideas.


Is that your contention?

Darwin died in 1882.

Evolutionary theory has been refined repeatedly since then as more and more evidence has been uncovered.

Using Darwin's original works as a basis for agruing against evolution is simply stupid.

But then, you are really adept at creating strawmen, even ones that died over a century ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No science is EVER settled nit wit! Jeesus I'm embarassed to be on the same side as you here.

Smh.

Glad you mentioned that.

Now, consider the OP in that light.


The fossil evidence from the Chinese discovery is a clear contradiction to Darwin orthodoxy.
Understand this: the discovery turns Darwin's 'tree of life' upside down!

Familiar with the 'tree of life' diagram that Darwin included in 'Origin'?

a. "Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species (1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

He begins with one simple organism at the bottom, and more and more as they become more complex.


b. And the point is: The sudden appearance of new body forms, new species is the very antithesis.



The only way to rescue Darwin's thesis, as Gould attempted to do, is to, as some fool did earlier, is to claim that 'gradual' is the same as 'sudden.'

Pretty much the definition of 'syncretic,' the attempt to reconcile opposing ideas.


Is that your contention?

Darwin died in 1882.

Evolutionary theory has been refined repeatedly since then as more and more evidence has been uncovered.

Using Darwin's original works as a basis for agruing against evolution is simply stupid.

But then, you are really adept at creating strawmen, even ones that died over a century ago.

"Evolutionary theory has been refined repeatedly since then as more and more evidence has been uncovered."

A century and a half....Darwin still unproven.
Accepting said theory is pretty much the definition of stupid.

Raise your paw.