On The Disparity of Species

[PoliticalChic]

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.

It makes perfect sense as the explanation of the provenance of Gould's thesis.


The part necessary for you to fill in with understanding is why he was searching for some way to rescue Darwin's theory.....

The problem of not making sense is less with the quote than with you.

 

[abu afak]

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.

And this is ANOTHER PoliticalThic piece of LYING and STUPIDITY.

Gould, As I showed in my last, IS a Darwinian EVOLUTIONIST.
P-E does NOT "put a stake in the heart" of anything but Your posts.
Which is Why Gould believes in Darwinian Evolution Along WITH his small Addition/Modification.

Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT the "Popping up of Fully Formed new species", it is merely the obvious fact that life follows changes around it. If that is rapid, so will the EVOLUTION be more rapid to follow it.
BTW, DARWIN ALSO BELIEVED THAT Evolution was in fits and starts.


Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a Geologic Time Scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]..."

So We are NOT Talking about "Fully Formed" new species "Popping up".
You are Willfully-blind-and-Lying-for-Jesus again.
We are talking a Relatively rapid, "on a geologic Time scale, change/Evolution.
"Rapid", on a geologic timescale could be Tens of Thousands or Hundreds of thousands of Years or More, NOT a Creation event.
the DNA will be 99.5% the Same and the animal will look very similar.

ie.

`
`

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

And this is ANOTHER PoliticalThic piece of LYING and STUPIDITY.

Gould, As I showed in my last IS a Darwinian EVOLUTIONIST and Believes Darwin is correct.
P-E does NOT "put a stake in the heart" of anything but Your posts.
Which is Why Gould believes in Darwinian Evolution Along WITH his small Addition/Modification.

Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT the "Popping up of Fully Formed new species", it is merely the obvious fact that life follows changes around it. If that is rapid, so will the EVOLUTION be more rapid to follow it.
BTW, DARWIN ALSO BELIEVED THAT Evolution was in fits and starts.


Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a Geologic Time Scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]..."

So We are NOT Talking about "Fully Formed" new species "Popping up".
You are Willfully-blind-and-Lying-for-Jesus again.
We are talking a relatively rapid, ON A GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE, change/Evolution.
"rapid, on a geologic timescale" could be Tens of Thousands or a Million Years, NOT a Creation event.
the DNA will be 99.5% the Same and the animal will look very similar.

ie.

`
`

How easy to prove you are an idiot, and one who is so very fearful of my posts....


Here goes:


“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.


Did you get that?

He's hoping that morons won't notice that the very essence of Darwin's theory, the gradual changes due to the accumulation of random mutations, is the exact opposite of 'punctuated equilibrium.'

And sure enough....you didn't notice....'cause you're a moron!



Here comes more:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


"So We are NOT Talking about "Fully Formed" new species "Popping up".

Yeah....that's exactly what Gould said:
"...fully formed..."

Get it yet....imbecile????


It's a scam!
And you bought it like it was on sale!



Hey....did you see this, you dope:
"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publi...logical-history-nyu-scientist-concludes-.html



If there was a Pandora's Box of stupidity, you would be its contents.


Now get the biggest font you can.....'cause that would prove your point.....


....but don't forget: I never lie.

 

[Hollie]

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.

And this is ANOTHER PoliticalThic piece of LYING and STUPIDITY.

Gould, As I showed in my last IS a Darwinian EVOLUTIONIST and Believes Darwin is correct.
P-E does NOT "put a stake in the heart" of anything but Your posts.
Which is Why Gould believes in Darwinian Evolution Along WITH his small Addition/Modification.

Punctuated Equilibrium is NOT the "Popping up of Fully Formed new species", it is merely the obvious fact that life follows changes around it. If that is rapid, so will the EVOLUTION be more rapid to follow it.
BTW, DARWIN ALSO BELIEVED THAT Evolution was in fits and starts.


Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and rapid (on a Geologic Time Scale) events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.[1]..."

So We are NOT Talking about "Fully Formed" new species "Popping up".
You are Willfully-blind-and-Lying-for-Jesus again.
We are talking a relatively rapid, ON A GEOLOGIC TIMESCALE, change/Evolution.
"rapid, on a geologic timescale" could be Tens of Thousands or a Million Years, NOT a Creation event.
the DNA will be 99.5% the Same and the animal will look very similar.

ie.

`
`

How easy to prove you are an idiot, and one who is so very fearful of my posts....


Here goes:


“The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. It in fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism. […] Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record."
— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.


Did you get that?

He's hoping that morons won't notice that the very essence of Darwin's theory, the gradual changes due to the accumulation of random mutations, is the exact opposite of 'punctuated equilibrium.'

And sure enough....you didn't notice....'cause you're a moron!



Here comes more:

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182


"So We are NOT Talking about "Fully Formed" new species "Popping up".

Yeah....that's exactly what Gould said:
"...fully formed..."

Get it yet....imbecile????


It's a scam!
And you bought it like it was on sale!



Hey....did you see this, you dope:
"Charles Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology"
http://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publi...logical-history-nyu-scientist-concludes-.html



If there was a Pandora's Box of stupidity, you would be its contents.


Now get the biggest font you can.....'cause that would prove your point.....


....but don't forget: I never lie.

I see that PC is using the same edited, falsified cut and paste lies she scours from fundamentalist web sites.


What a shame that she is so utterly befuddled, she doesn’t understand that her fraudulent cutting and pasting has long ago been debunked as just so much creationist lies and deceit.



So, here we go the first of her frauds.

What she has done is cut and paste out of context portions of Gould’s work and the sites she routinely cuts and pastes from typically parse and edit the “quotes” she mindlessly dumps into thread after thread. Even when her frauds are exposed as such, she continues to cut and paste them.


The “quotes” from Gould and Eldredge that she fraudulently dumped in this thread have been trashed as garbage in at least two other threads. PC is just garbage picking at this point.


Ready, again and again, PC?


Your fraudulent “quotes” are among the most notorious lies that ooze out of the creation ministries you steal from.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"


Quote #14

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)


Snipped in the ellipsis is:
"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."


Following this passage is:
"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.

"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.




See how that works, PC? When you cut and paste edited "quotes" that you know are fraudulently parsed and out of context, you become a part of the fraud that is creationism. Tell that to your pals at Harun Yahya.

You're just a pedestrian liar, a run of the mill, hack, a fundamentalist fraud who lies, cheats and makes every effort to vilify science in the hopes of propping up your various gawds.

 

[itfitzme]

PC is a perfect example of confirmation bias. It is active confirmation bias.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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


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

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

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

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





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

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

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


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

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






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

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







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

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

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






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


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

It's all about faith.

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

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

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

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

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

I would bet hard money that someone told you that, and that you couldn't explain what you just said if your life depended on it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

In other words, "I don't have to refute anything you say. I just have to yell, 'fundamentalist!' and hope everyone believes you're discredited."

Here's a thought. Instead of blithering to us about how someone you most likely couldn't tell us about if you had to said that we "know" the answer ahead of time, why don't you try telling us why said answer, whenever it was known, is WRONG? Can you do that?

(I love watching leftists try to talk science. It's like watching my dog try to walk on his hind legs, except he's cuter.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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

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

How's that stand up folks?

Perhaps.....

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


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


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

And I have the answer to that query.

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

Gotta love "I was told that EVERYONE KNOWS evolution is right, so I don't have to think any further!" It's certainly hard to argue with . . . if only because I'm usually laughing too hard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right up there with Scientology and god.

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

Thanks for helping out.

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

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

"Fundamentalist! Zealot! Bible thumper!"

You DO realize this is literally all you've said this entire thread so far, right?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

Funny, but I was taught that in science, EVERYTHING should be open to questioning.

Thank God we didn't apply the "relevant scientific community accepts" mode of inquiry at the beginning of the Renaissance, or that sucker would have died at birth.

 

[Hollie]

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

Thanks for helping out.

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

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

"Fundamentalist! Zealot! Bible thumper!"

You DO realize this is literally all you've said this entire thread so far, right?

You should have realized that many effective counter arguments have been offered to the dishonest cutting and pasting that PC spams the board with.

Like her, you're unable to offer any relevant rebuttal to the established science.

 

[Hollie]

Perhaps.....

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


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


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

And I have the answer to that query.

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

Gotta love "I was told that EVERYONE KNOWS evolution is right, so I don't have to think any further!" It's certainly hard to argue with . . . if only because I'm usually laughing too hard.

Gotta' love whiners and complainers who loathe science, but are unable to offer a single bit of verifiable evidence to refute what has been offered.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

In other words, "I don't have to refute anything you say. I just have to yell, 'fundamentalist!' and hope everyone believes you're discredited."

Here's a thought. Instead of blithering to us about how someone you most likely couldn't tell us about if you had to said that we "know" the answer ahead of time, why don't you try telling us why said answer, whenever it was known, is WRONG? Can you do that?

(I love watching leftists try to talk science. It's like watching my dog try to walk on his hind legs, except he's cuter.)

In other words, your feelings are hurt when someone challenges your religious beliefs.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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


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

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

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

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





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

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

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


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

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






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

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







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

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

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






Without Darwin, secularism falls apart.


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

It's all about faith.

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

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

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

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

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

I would bet hard money that someone told you that, and that you couldn't explain what you just said if your life depended on it.

I am a science writer.

Enjoy my blog--http://markgelbart.wordpress.com/

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

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.

Did you bother reading my link?

Both models are valid and can explain how evolution occurs. One does not invalidate the other.

A boxer can knock someone out with one punch in the first round and win a fight.

Or a boxer can outbox another fighter for 12 rounds and win a fight.

That is the opposite, yet both can be paths to victory.

Put your thinking cap on now and try to contemplate my point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Did you bother reading my link?

Both models are valid and can explain how evolution occurs. One does not invalidate the other.

A boxer can knock someone out with one punch in the first round and win a fight.

Or a boxer can outbox another fighter for 12 rounds and win a fight.

That is the opposite, yet both can be paths to victory.

Put your thinking cap on now and try to contemplate my point.

Swineodon....the two models are diametric opposites.

Your inane post suggests that transparent and opaque can apply to the same object....

....get a dictionary...it might help.


Representative of the fact that fanatics like you refuse to accept the very words of the men you ostensibly champion is the way you ignored Gould's own words that verify both that he was a Marxist, and that Marxism was the inspiration for his 'punctuated equilibrium' theory.



But....let's try to teach you once again:


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182



Busted.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

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

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

How's that stand up folks?

Right up there with Scientology and god.

And Darwinism. None are provable, but Darwinism relies on the idea that because diverse species evolved over millions of years, and we can't find fossil records to support our claims,you're just going to have to believe our version of the truth.

 

[Hollie]

Swineodon, as usual, your posts are drivel.

The two theories are opposites.

As are you, and intelligence.

Did you bother reading my link?

Both models are valid and can explain how evolution occurs. One does not invalidate the other.

A boxer can knock someone out with one punch in the first round and win a fight.

Or a boxer can outbox another fighter for 12 rounds and win a fight.

That is the opposite, yet both can be paths to victory.

Put your thinking cap on now and try to contemplate my point.

Swineodon....the two models are diametric opposites.

Your inane post suggests that transparent and opaque can apply to the same object....

....get a dictionary...it might help.


Representative of the fact that fanatics like you refuse to accept the very words of the men you ostensibly champion is the way you ignored Gould's own words that verify both that he was a Marxist, and that Marxism was the inspiration for his 'punctuated equilibrium' theory.



But....let's try to teach you once again:


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182



Busted.

Umm sorry, dear, but your mindless cutting and pasting is busted.

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

You can't even cut ands paste correctly. The out of context "quote" is on page 207.

Tell you pals at Harun Yahya to actually read the material.

You're a fraud.


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


Yep. Another fraud. You have cut and pasted this fraud 4 separate times now and you have been shown on 4 occasions that your parsed, edited and out of context "quote" is creationist fraud.


You're really the worst kind of liar because you know you're a fraud yet you persist in your fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you bother reading my link?

Both models are valid and can explain how evolution occurs. One does not invalidate the other.

A boxer can knock someone out with one punch in the first round and win a fight.

Or a boxer can outbox another fighter for 12 rounds and win a fight.

That is the opposite, yet both can be paths to victory.

Put your thinking cap on now and try to contemplate my point.

Swineodon....the two models are diametric opposites.

Your inane post suggests that transparent and opaque can apply to the same object....

....get a dictionary...it might help.


Representative of the fact that fanatics like you refuse to accept the very words of the men you ostensibly champion is the way you ignored Gould's own words that verify both that he was a Marxist, and that Marxism was the inspiration for his 'punctuated equilibrium' theory.



But....let's try to teach you once again:


a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182



Busted.

Umm sorry, dear, but your mindless cutting and pasting is busted.

a. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

You can't even cut ands paste correctly. The out of context "quote" is on page 207.

Tell you pals at Harun Yahya to actually read the material.

You're a fraud.


And this:


b. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


Yep. Another fraud. You have cut and pasted this fraud 4 separate times now and you have been shown on 4 occasions that your parsed, edited and out of context "quote" is creationist fraud.


You're really the worst kind of liar because you know you're a fraud yet you persist in your fraud.

Prove it.

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

How's that stand up folks?

Right up there with Scientology and god.

And Darwinism. None are provable, but Darwinism relies on the idea that because diverse species evolved over millions of years, and we can't find fossil records to support our claims,you're just going to have to believe our version of the truth.

Actually, "Darwinism", (and what you really mean is Darwin's Theory of Evolution), has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal Nature for example.

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.