Why Darwin?

[LOki]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If it isn't apparent to you, PoliticalChic's world is ruled and informed by superstition.

 

[irosie91]

Loki is a character in scandanavian mythology----I remember reading a story --------I was probably
in the third grade-----hiding a book on my lap---under
my desk

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If you don't recognize Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' as a pale semblance of Karl Mark's theory of history, then you cannot understand the topic.


"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 bookThe 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’

3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist?by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "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.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "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.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner 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

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

First off, those mutations don't work like power ups in video games. You aren't going to go from small beak to large beak in one generation. It's slightly this and slightly that for multiple generations.

Secondly, you are using human perceptions of time to evaluate geologic time scales.. We're talking millions of years of geology as "suddenly" appearing. If it takes 500,000 generations to develop a new trait in a species and a new generation every two years, we only have a million years before that trait not being in the fossil record and then being in the fossil record. That million years is nothing in geologic time. Given how hard it is to create a fossil in the first place and how short of a time that million year blip it, it isn't surprising at all that all kinds of new and unprecedented just show up.

This post is just silly.

Suddenly you can explain timelines that remain a puzzle to those who recognize the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[Steven_R]

You don't understand your own topic. Gould could have been a Marxist, Republican, Satan Worshiper, or liked secretly liked ABBA. It doesn't matter if he liked the discovery because it meshed with Mao's Little Red Book or not. If the hypothesis doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it gets discarded, even if, and I want this to be perfectly clear, it is loved by all the political thinkers our there.

See also: Lysenko, Tofrim

 

[PoliticalChic]

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . 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)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

 

[Steven_R]

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner 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

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

First off, those mutations don't work like power ups in video games. You aren't going to go from small beak to large beak in one generation. It's slightly this and slightly that for multiple generations.

Secondly, you are using human perceptions of time to evaluate geologic time scales.. We're talking millions of years of geology as "suddenly" appearing. If it takes 500,000 generations to develop a new trait in a species and a new generation every two years, we only have a million years before that trait not being in the fossil record and then being in the fossil record. That million years is nothing in geologic time. Given how hard it is to create a fossil in the first place and how short of a time that million year blip it, it isn't surprising at all that all kinds of new and unprecedented just show up.

This post is just silly.

Suddenly you can explain timelines that remain a puzzle to those who recognize the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

It was covered in my Biology 102 class. It can't be too much of a mystery if it's in a freshman text.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If it isn't apparent to you, PoliticalChic's world is ruled and informed by superstition.

OMG!

It's the patient making analytical statements about the psychiatrist!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner 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

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

First off, those mutations don't work like power ups in video games. You aren't going to go from small beak to large beak in one generation. It's slightly this and slightly that for multiple generations.

Secondly, you are using human perceptions of time to evaluate geologic time scales.. We're talking millions of years of geology as "suddenly" appearing. If it takes 500,000 generations to develop a new trait in a species and a new generation every two years, we only have a million years before that trait not being in the fossil record and then being in the fossil record. That million years is nothing in geologic time. Given how hard it is to create a fossil in the first place and how short of a time that million year blip it, it isn't surprising at all that all kinds of new and unprecedented just show up.

This post is just silly.

Suddenly you can explain timelines that remain a puzzle to those who recognize the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

It was covered in my Biology 102 class. It can't be too much of a mystery if it's in a freshman text.

So you never progressed beyond Biology 102?

An excellent explanation of your post.

 

[irosie91]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If you don't recognize Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' as a pale semblance of Karl Mark's theory of history, then you cannot understand the topic.


"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 bookThe 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’

3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist?by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007

Yeah? I could not agree more-------so Gould was a Marxist but not a Stalinist. -------same is true of Marx---
he was a Marxist but not a Stalinist. And Stalin was
not a Marxist ---he was a Stalinist. And Adolf was not a
Marxist ----he was a Nazi. Whether or not Marx was
an atheist or Darwin was an Atheist------is neither here
nor there. Darwin was a biologist and Marx was
an Economist. The forces which govern evolution are
analogous-----mathematically-----to the theories of
socialist economics posited by Marx-------so?????

the earth exerts a force on the moon------not just on
apples

 

[irosie91]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If it isn't apparent to you, PoliticalChic's world is ruled and informed by superstition.

OMG!

It's the patient making analytical statements about the psychiatrist!!

Patients often do so-------a kind of advanced form of
counter transference

 

[Steven_R]

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

First off, those mutations don't work like power ups in video games. You aren't going to go from small beak to large beak in one generation. It's slightly this and slightly that for multiple generations.

Secondly, you are using human perceptions of time to evaluate geologic time scales.. We're talking millions of years of geology as "suddenly" appearing. If it takes 500,000 generations to develop a new trait in a species and a new generation every two years, we only have a million years before that trait not being in the fossil record and then being in the fossil record. That million years is nothing in geologic time. Given how hard it is to create a fossil in the first place and how short of a time that million year blip it, it isn't surprising at all that all kinds of new and unprecedented just show up.

This post is just silly.

Suddenly you can explain timelines that remain a puzzle to those who recognize the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

It was covered in my Biology 102 class. It can't be too much of a mystery if it's in a freshman text.

So you never progressed beyond Biology 102?

An excellent explanation of your post.

Somehow I doubt upper division classes on biology are suddenly going to forget what was taught to freshmen.

 

[Moonglow]

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

First off, those mutations don't work like power ups in video games. You aren't going to go from small beak to large beak in one generation. It's slightly this and slightly that for multiple generations.

Secondly, you are using human perceptions of time to evaluate geologic time scales.. We're talking millions of years of geology as "suddenly" appearing. If it takes 500,000 generations to develop a new trait in a species and a new generation every two years, we only have a million years before that trait not being in the fossil record and then being in the fossil record. That million years is nothing in geologic time. Given how hard it is to create a fossil in the first place and how short of a time that million year blip it, it isn't surprising at all that all kinds of new and unprecedented just show up.

This post is just silly.

Suddenly you can explain timelines that remain a puzzle to those who recognize the mystery of the Cambrian Explosion.

It was covered in my Biology 102 class. It can't be too much of a mystery if it's in a freshman text.

So you never progressed beyond Biology 102?

An excellent explanation of your post.

Somehow I doubt upper division classes on biology are suddenly going to forget what was taught to freshmen.

I would, what with no interest in it and all...

 

[irosie91]

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . 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)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

the basic theory----is "about gradualism"------but
I believe that DARWIN himself would have been willing
to concede possible apparent ABRUPT (yes ---I like that word) speciations under unusual circumstances----
(I am about to ABRUPTLY speciate........myself......

 

[Moonglow]

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . 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)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

the basic theory----is "about gradualism"------but
I believe that DARWIN himself would have been willing
to concede possible apparent ABRUPT (yes ---I like that word) speciations under unusual circumstances----
(I am about to ABRUPTLY speciate........myself......

There are Depends available in the courtesy lounge...

 

[LOki]

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . 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)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

It is a never ending source of amusement for me, the way retards like you so proudly self identify.

 

[irosie91]

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

the basic theory----is "about gradualism"------but
I believe that DARWIN himself would have been willing
to concede possible apparent ABRUPT (yes ---I like that word) speciations under unusual circumstances----
(I am about to ABRUPTLY speciate........myself......

There are Depends available in the courtesy lounge...

I never speciate without a lavatory nearby

 

[Hollie]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If you don't recognize Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' as a pale semblance of Karl Mark's theory of history, then you cannot understand the topic.


"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 bookThe 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’

3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist?by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007

It was only a matter of time before the "Gould was a commie", meme was used. This is a tactic PC has used before to vilify those Evilutionists.

 

[Hollie]

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . 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)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"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)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

Gould. From the very paragraph your quote was mined from:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."​

You're truly an imbecile....but I suppose you must be tired of hearing that from everybody.

Do you not see what a fool he is making of you????

First "The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change."
And "It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Darwin is about gradualism, fool!!

"Gradualism" is often a feature of evilution but not a requirement. Additionally, the instruction you received at the Falwell madrassah neglected to identify geologic timescales. Your silly fascination with "sudden appearance" is in the context of geologic timescales.

Tell Falwell you want your tuition dollars returned. I'm afraid the time you spent there and the damage done to you is unrecoverable.

 

[LOki]

This is more to the point about Gould....and his love of Darwin:

"Gould, who taught biology, paleontology, and geology at Harvard University, made the following statement: "Hegel's dialectical laws, translated into a materialist context, have become the official 'state philosophy' of many socialist nations. These laws of change are explicitly punctuational, as befits a theory of revolutionary transformation in human society. In the light of this official philosophy, it is not at all surprising that a punctuational view of speciation [the evolutionary process by which new species are formed] much like our own . . . has long been favored by many Russian paleontologists. It may also not be irrelevant to our personal preferences that one of us [Gould] learned his Marxism, literally at his daddy's knee."
Stephen Jay Gould - David A. Noebel The President s Desk - Summit Ministries



When will you dopes catch on to how you've been manipulated....'useful idiots.'

Never, huh?

Nazi engineers used Calculus to launch V2 rockets at London and then put men on the Moon. Just because some scientist has a particular philosophical bent doesn't mean the discoveries are somehow inherently tainted. Unless one believes there is merit in the arguments of "Jewish science" versus "Aryan science."

If you don't recognize Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' as a pale semblance of Karl Mark's theory of history, then you cannot understand the topic.


"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 bookThe 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’

3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist?by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007

It was only a matter of time before the "Gould was a commie", meme was used. This is a tactic PC has used before to vilify those Evilutionists.

And she thinks her superstitious premises are not obvious. LOLfritters!