Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

[abu afak]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

 

[Iceweasel]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.

 

[abu afak]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.

Gravity IS a FACT.
Evolution IS a FACT.
Atomic Theory IS a Fact
Some newer Scientific theories are Not/Not Yet facts, but await decades of Confirmation as the other 3 ALREADY have.

You're not near smart enough semantically (either) to strawman me with "ALL" theories are Facts.
Gameover little Turd.
`

 

[Old Rocks]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.

By your own words, you reveal that you are completely ignorant of what theory means in science. Also, that you remain ignorant on purpose.

 

[Iceweasel]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.

By your own words, you reveal that you are completely ignorant of what theory means in science. Also, that you remain ignorant on purpose.

I gave an example of how a theory differs from a fact. Your turd for a brain isn't my shortcoming.

 

[Iceweasel]

scientific theory
scientific theory
a theory that can be tested and potentially disproved; failure to disprove or refute it increases confidence in it, but it cannot be considered as proven.

Does NOT contradict what I said, but is DISHONEST Cherry-Picking on your part
FILTHY DISHONESTY
Google "Scientific theory"
scientific theory - Google Search

First up: Wiki

A scientific theory is a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly Confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Scientific theory - Wikipedia​

Sciam:

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words


Theories do Not, and don't have to be, Proven to be FACT.
Proofs are only for math.
Most Statements of Fact are not "Proven."
​

You can foam over and puke all over yourself as far as I care. Theories are not facts, period! The steady state model of the universe was the running theory of the day. Now, not so much. Like I said, zealots like you try to massage words, not me.

Gravity IS a FACT.
Evolution IS a FACT.
Atomic Theory IS a Fact
Some newer Scientific theories are Not/Not Yet facts, but await decades of Confirmation as the other 3 ALREADY have.

You're not near smart enough semantically (either) to strawman me with "ALL" theories are Facts.
Gameover little Turd.
`

Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.

 

[abu afak]

..Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.

My Gould article contains your newest claims about "how it works".
In fact, that very phrase. Evo is a FACT, we're just debating "how it works."

That does NOT refute, or even disagree with Evo (and others) being FACTS.
Gravity get's Tweaks/How it works, it's still a Fact.
Gould himself added 'Punctuated Equilibrium' to the Theory and FACT of Evolution!
Ooops

Again you are Not near semantically clever enough either.
Your original proposition that Evo and others were theories because of doubt is/was/remains Wrong.
So now you are moving the goal posts.
YOU LOST, STILL.

Save time: Just assume you're down 30+ IQ points.
`

 

[Iceweasel]

..Turdbreath. We know gravity exists but we have theories to explain it. As more facts come in they can be modified or discarded altogether. So....how it works and the fact it exists are two different things. You are trying to play some semantic game to prop up your shaky secular religion.

My Gould article contains your newest claims about "how it works".
In fact, that very phrase. Evo is a FACT, we're just debating "how it works."

That does NOT refute, or even disagree with Evo (and others) being FACTS.
Gravity get's Tweaks/How it works, it's still a Fact.
Gould himself added 'Punctuated Equilibrium' to the Theory and FACT of Evolution!
Ooops

Again you are Not near semantically clever enough either.
Your original proposition that Evo and others were theories because of doubt is/was/remains Wrong.
So now you are moving the goal posts.
YOU LOST, STILL.

Save time: Just assume you're down 30+ IQ points.
`

Oops what? I didn't dispute that evolution exists. I even said so numerous times but you continue to go ape on your keyboard. Maybe you're a monkey that knows how to type?

As I recall his punctuated equilibrium was a theory to explain the Cambrium Explosion and it was European evolutionists that had an opposing view, don't recall what it was though.

So the theory isn't exactly ubiquitous. You are a cultists defending your faith. All I did was disagree with a secular cause to make you go full retard.

 

[abu afak]

You're sticking to your lie???
Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.
You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.
The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.
“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution



And…
“Evolution is 100 percent fact” The Pretense Called Evolution



And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science


It's taught, presented to students, as though it's a proven fact.

Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?

Nov 6, 2013

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claims.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
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.
[......]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're sticking to your lie???
Darwin's theory is taught at every level of school as a fact.
You can see posts where government school grads claim it a fact.
The error is accepted by nearly every government school grad. Evolution…settled: “it’s a fact.”You can play with words, but here are your pals admitting it.
“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution



And…
“Evolution is 100 percent fact” The Pretense Called Evolution



And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science


It's taught, presented to students, as though it's a proven fact.

Answer the question: why is it so important that you believe Darwin's theory is a fact?

Nov 6, 2013

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claims.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.

In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.

Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.

The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
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.
[......]

Which of my quotes was false?

 

[abu afak]

That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.

So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.

See many in this thread and others.

In fact Quote-Mining is your DISHONEST bread and Butter.

`

`

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.

So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.

See many in this thread and others.

In fact Quote-Mining is your DISHONEST bread and Butter.

`

`

All quotes are " Uncontexted quotes."

Otherwise, one would require the full essay, text, book.

So, you agree that all of my quotes, sourced, linked and documented are true, correct and accurate.

Excellent.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.

So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.

See many in this thread and others.

In fact Quote-Mining is your DISHONEST bread and Butter.

`

`

All quotes are " Uncontexted quotes."

Otherwise, one would require the full essay, text, book.

So, you agree that all of my quotes, sourced, linked and documented are true, correct and accurate.

Excellent.

Let's try one.


Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …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.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?


Of course it is, and ends any defense of Darwinism.




That's really gotta hurt, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's NOT an answer to my post/article, which pointed out the ABUSE of Uncontexted quotes.

So by Not answering me, just UNWITtingly confirm what I/He said, which doesn't necessarily include 'false', just Out of context and Misleading.

See many in this thread and others.

In fact Quote-Mining is your DISHONEST bread and Butter.

`

`

All quotes are " Uncontexted quotes."

Otherwise, one would require the full essay, text, book.

So, you agree that all of my quotes, sourced, linked and documented are true, correct and accurate.

Excellent.

Let's try one.


Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …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.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?


Of course it is, and ends any defense of Darwinism.




That's really gotta hurt, huh?

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfct 'gradualism' and he himself Tweeked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equalibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate/etc, events, etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution buy Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.

`

Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …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.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?



I jammed it down your lying throat, huh?

 

[abu afak]

I see you tried to DISHONESTLY sandwich/bury my reply with two identical posts 14 minutes apart.
Didn't work
Part of your usual Bury-em-with-BS Hyper-spaced posts.

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.


`

 

[PoliticalChic]

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfct 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equalibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution buy Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.


`

1. I just provided a quote from Gould that said the very opposite of Darwin's theory.

2. And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....and idea he got from his Marxism.

3. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’,





See what I taught you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see you tried to DISHONESTLY sandwich/bury my reply with two identical posts 14 minutes apart.
Didn't work
Part of your usual Bury-em-with-BS Hyper-spaced posts.

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution buy Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.


`

I don't debate you.....I destroy you.


Are we having fun?

 

[PoliticalChic]

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution buy Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and Not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist Spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.


`

Here is Stephen J. Gould, Marxist, pretty much throwing Darwin under the bus.

““Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …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.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Is this quote accurate, true, and correct?

1. I just provided a quote from Gould that said the very opposite of Darwin's theory.

2. And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....and idea he got from his Marxism.

3. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism. Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’,





See what I taught you? Darwin/Gould theory is political, not scientific.

 

[abu afak]

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and Not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist Spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.

BTW BIMBO: Being a "Marxist" (or a Fascist) (or Democrat) doesn't make science correct or incorrect.
It's just another of your STUPID Smear attempts.


`

 

[PoliticalChic]

SJ Gould is a 100% Evolutionist.
He disagrees with perfect 'gradualism' and he himself (with Eldrege) Tweaked Evolution with 'Punctuated Equilibrium.' Saying that it may oft move much more quickly.
This would of course be TRUE/Logical if there were ie, large geologic/climate events/etc.

You are also, and most crucially, trying to Discredit Evolution by Nitpicking Darwin WITH GOULD.
Exactly the DISHONEST PLOY Gould wrote about above!

GOULD BELIEVED IN EVOLUTION 100%.

You cannot debate me.
You're both wrong and Not semantically clever enough.
You are a DISHONEST and Brainwashed Creationist Cultist Spammer and 7/11 Adventist.
You need to be detoxed with years of therapy/real education.

BTW BIMBO: Being a "Marxist" (or a Fascist) doesn't make science correct or incorrect.


`

I proved the point, any the best you can do is ignore the proof.

The beatings will continue until I see the light of learning on your part….and then they will continue for the sheer joy of it.