On The Disparity of Species

[Smilodonfatalis]

BTW,

How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?

That makes no sense at all.

I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.

 

[longknife]

I love it!!!

I make a semi-tongue-in-cheek post and get some truly rabid responses.

"Scientific method" is not necessarily the end-all. How many "scientifically approved" items have changed as technology advances?

What will happen when technology is developed to allow us to look into the past? And we learn "the truth" about evolution? Or creationism?

My point is that one should be just as querulous about so-called "proven" things as those based upon "faith".

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW,

How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?

That makes no sense at all.

I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.

If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.


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’



I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."

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


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

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

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



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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

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

Debunked???


You have merely proven your stupidity.

 

[Hollie]

BTW,

How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?

That makes no sense at all.

I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.

If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.


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’



I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]

This is another of your really pathetic "analogies": "punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’

It's just so silly. However, for Harun Yahya groupies such as yourself, these confused, irrelevant associations appeal to the brain dead fundamentalist.

 

[Hollie]

1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."

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


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

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

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



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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

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

Debunked???


You have merely proven your stupidity.

Absent a phony "quote" to cut and paste, it's interesting to see how the vacant mind of the fundamentalist is left blank and barren.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

BTW,

How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?

That makes no sense at all.

I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.

If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.


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’



I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]

An out of context quote is not an explanation.

I want you, in your own words, to explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is some how Marxist.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."

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


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

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

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



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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

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

Debunked???


You have merely proven your stupidity.

Yep...debunked.

You didn't even respond to my explanation.

You merely called me stupid.

Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

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

Debunked???


You have merely proven your stupidity.

Yep...debunked.

You didn't even respond to my explanation.

You merely called me stupid.

Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.

But you are stupid.....you don't understand what you've attempted to post about....Marxism as the basis for punctuated equilibrium.


And post #23 does answer the query.....

.....and you shutting your eyes really tight and covering your ears doesn't change the fact.



Further....I quoted you extensively in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html


...and ripped you up there, as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

BTW,

How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?

That makes no sense at all.

I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.

If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.


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’



I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]

An out of context quote is not an explanation.

I want you, in your own words, to explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is some how Marxist.

So....you don't understand what 'context' means, either?


"I want you, in your own words...."


The chances of me following the instructions of a dunce like you will occur shortly after Coach Sandusky gets a job on Sesame Street.


Get someone brighter than you explaining post #23 to you.....try any third grader.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Debunked???


You have merely proven your stupidity.

Yep...debunked.

You didn't even respond to my explanation.

You merely called me stupid.

Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.

But you are stupid.....you don't understand what you've attempted to post about....Marxism as the basis for punctuated equilibrium.


And post #23 does answer the query.....

.....and you shutting your eyes really tight and covering your ears doesn't change the fact.



Further....I quoted you extensively in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html


...and ripped you up there, as well.

I don't see any explanation in your words on post #23.

If this were a homework assignment, you would get a zero for that post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep...debunked.

You didn't even respond to my explanation.

You merely called me stupid.

Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.

But you are stupid.....you don't understand what you've attempted to post about....Marxism as the basis for punctuated equilibrium.


And post #23 does answer the query.....

.....and you shutting your eyes really tight and covering your ears doesn't change the fact.



Further....I quoted you extensively in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html


...and ripped you up there, as well.

I don't see any explanation in your words on post #23.

If this were a homework assignment, you would get a zero for that post.

"I don't see any explanation in your words on post #23."


How honest of you....admitting that you are befuddled.

 

[itfitzme]

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



It's all about faith.

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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



Get it, you imbecile?

As you just keep on spouting it, you will believe anything.

 

[abu afak]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.
One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position.. .

PoliticalChic is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and BRAINWASHED Religious Nut.
She has seen this post many times before but still LIES.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
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.
[......]

`

And THAT is the DISHONESTY we see from PoliticalChic Daily, presenting::: "little more than a rhetorical Supposed Contradiction"

She's a Refugee from Sanity and Honesty.
A Deceiver 'for' God.
An Immoral Intentional LIAR who posts Gould as "supporting" her.
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.
One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....

Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position.. .

PoliticalChic is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and BRAINWASHED Religious Nut.
She has seen this post many times before but still LIES.

Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
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.
[......]

`

And THAT is the DISHONESTY we see from PoliticalChic Daily, presenting::: "little more than a rhetorical Supposed Contradiction"

She's a Refugee from Sanity and Honesty.
A Deceiver 'for' God.
An Immoral Intentional LIAR who posts Gould as "supporting" her.
`

"PoliticalChic is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and BRAINWASHED Religious Nut."

Ohhhh......
....you poor sad thing, you.

I'll try to take it easy on you as you are a pacifist out of necessity in a battle of wits.


I hurt your widdle feeling by criticizing the religion of Darwinism....you know, the idea based on faith rather than evidence.


I try to maintain this as a question of science.....it is in the science forum.....but when you can't rebut it as science, you fools keep trying to make this about religion.


So sad.


You should take care when you enter a discussion of evolution, as you are proof that evolution CAN go in reverse!




BTW....for future reference...I never lie.

 

[editec]

So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?

I presume you have one?


What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.

What DO you believe?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?

I presume you have one?


What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.

What DO you believe?

Judging by the font....you really get exercised about the question..........
....now, calm down.





So, editec....do you agree that the fact that the most famous neo-Darwinist, namely Stephen J. Gould, produced a theory that ran counter to Darwin's....the very opposite, in fact....

...he stated that species pop up, fully formed and totally different from earlier species....


...put the stake through the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory?


I presume you have an opinion as to which is correct.



What DO you believe?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?

I presume you have one?


What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.

What DO you believe?

Judging by the font....you really get exercised about the question..........
....now, calm down.





So, editec....do you agree that the fact that the most famous neo-Darwinist, namely Stephen J. Gould, produced a theory that ran counter to Darwin's....the very opposite, in fact....

...he stated that species pop up, fully formed and totally different from earlier species....


...put the stake through the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory?


I presume you have an opinion as to which is correct.



What DO you believe?

Still ignoring the below explanation, I see.

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?

I presume you have one?


What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.

What DO you believe?

Judging by the font....you really get exercised about the question..........
....now, calm down.





So, editec....do you agree that the fact that the most famous neo-Darwinist, namely Stephen J. Gould, produced a theory that ran counter to Darwin's....the very opposite, in fact....

...he stated that species pop up, fully formed and totally different from earlier species....


...put the stake through the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory?


I presume you have an opinion as to which is correct.



What DO you believe?

Still ignoring the below explanation, I see.

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

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

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

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

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

It depends on the environmental circumstances.

Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads

Swineodon, as usual, your posts are drivel.

The two theories are opposites.

As are you, and intelligence.

 

[Steven_R]

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’

That makes less sense everytime I read it. Just because some physical phenomena explanation gives me comfort on some political level, it doesn't invalidate the underlying physical phenomena explanation.

I might like black holes because it conforms with my Randian Objectivist outlook and the universe is using the black hole to illustrate that what's mine is mine and I never have to give it up, but take my philosophy out of the picture and the black hole will still do what black holes do.