Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

[abu afak]

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.
[......]

`

 

[S.J.]

Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.

 

[jwoodie]

Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun). Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.

Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents. No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species. We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.

 

[PredFan]

Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.

You missed the point.

 

[PredFan]

Contrary to the OP's opinion, fact does mean absolute certainty (e.g., Earth revolves around Sun). Moreover, resorting to word mincing between "what" and "how" indicates a shallowness of thought.

Ironically, the least informed Darwinists (unable to distinguish between intra- and inter-species differentiation) are also the most strident proponents. No reputable biologist has been able to put forth a credible theory as to how one species can mutate into an entirely different species. We may ultimately determine an explanation, but we are not there yet.

Another swing and a miss!

 

[PredFan]

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.

SWOOOOOOSSSHHH!

Three strikes and you are all out.

 

[Steven_R]

When we finish with why evolution is a lie, our next topic will be why the Sun really goes around the Earth, and that topic will be followed by a presentation entitled "The Four Humours & You: How to Keep in Balance for Fun, Profit, & Health." Make sure you stay to the end when we discuss how dental cavities are caused by tiny worms.

 

[jwoodie]

Shallowness noted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

 

[PredFan]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

That is totally missing the point of the OP. Again.

 

[Steven_R]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. It's our #2 and #2 and #13 in chimps. So whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.. I mean, that's just as feasible. I'd consider giving us intelligence and evidence pointing one way but not really meaning it as kind of a dick move, but God works in mysterious ways.

 

[Steven_R]

Shallowness noted.

I was afraid I was being too subtle.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

Well, at some point humans branched off and two of our chromosomes fused. It's our #2 and #2 and #13 in chimps. So whatever the common ancestor we and chimps had evolved into two separate species of Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes.

Either that or God fused two chromosomes in our genome together in an attempt to trick us into thinking we're related to chimps.. I mean, that's just as feasible. I'd consider giving us intelligence and evidence pointing one way but not really meaning it as kind of a dick move, but God works in mysterious ways.

We are 90 percent compatible with mice so I guess we once were related to mice too right?

There is no evidence that man and ape evolved from a single species. That is conjecture and assumption. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY mammal has ever evolved from a completely different species. Reputable scientists even admit this is true.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If one had actual proof that evolution of mammals was real and I mean one species evolving into one or more entirely different species, it would be earth shattering and would be all over the news. There is zero evidence of such. Every attempt to make it true is with an "inferred". "assumed", "we think" " it should be".

Go ahead provide us a direct link to proof that one species of mammals has ever evolved into one or more entirely different species.

That is totally missing the point of the OP. Again.

The op is claiming that evolution from one mammal species to one or more totally different species is fact. That is a lie. It is NOT true. There is no evidence of that. No reputable scientist makes that claim anywhere.

 

[Sunni Man]

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.

Which actually is 'adaption' not evolution. .

 

[Old Rocks]

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.

The fossils of Karoo.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is NO evidence that one species of mammals has ever evolved into an entirely different species. Much less 2 or more. The ONLY evidence of evolution is within a species.

The fossils of Karoo.

Do not prove evolution of one species of mammals into one or more different species. Keep on lying.

 

[S.J.]

Oh boy, another claim that the "theory" of evolution is fact, without having to prove anything.

You missed the point.

No I didn't.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/f...mo-Triassic/12b-4_P-T_Synapsid_Extinction.pdf