Why Darwin?

[PoliticalChic]

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information. Your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

Simple enough to show what a simpleton you are:
Show where it's out of context.




Waiting.

 

[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.

All he does is make the case for rapid evolution.

You're a moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context.

btw, you left this out of your Gould bio:

According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[10]

lol

1. "No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context."
A lie.

2. "btw, you left this out of your Gould bio
Another sort of lie.....I left nothing out that had to do with Darwin.

You left out his endorsement of Darwinism as the basic platform for the theory of evolution, such as in this:

"Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply."[35]

Of course he's a Darwinist.

He just disproves Darwin....and you're too stupid to catch on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

You can try to change the subject....you are being thoroughly thrashed.....but I won't allow it.

You've become the human piñata!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

What is your obsession with proving Darwin imperfect? The orginal Constitution was imperfect. What does that prove?

Now you're getting there!

The answer is in plain English in the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Here's a confirmation of Gould's fundamental belief in speciation, which your cult depends so much on denying:

Stephen Jay Gould (1973), who died recently, was a major champion of the idea that speciation often precedes as relatively short bursts of accelerated evolution followed by long periods of stasis (low rate of change). "Punctuated equilibrium" is the term describing this paleontologically derived view of the evolutionary process.


Speciation

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Here's a confirmation of Gould's fundamental belief in speciation, which your cult depends so much on denying:

Stephen Jay Gould (1973), who died recently, was a major champion of the idea that speciation often precedes as relatively short bursts of accelerated evolution followed by long periods of stasis (low rate of change). "Punctuated equilibrium" is the term describing this paleontologically derived view of the evolutionary process.


Speciation

As I wrote earlier, Gould was the go-to guy for neo-Darwinists....and an atheist and a Marxist.

His bogus 'punctuated equilibrium' was the science version of Karl Marx's thesis on history.

He made it up both as homage to Marx, and because the evidence piled up that evolution was not a gradual process due to random changes, as Darwin postulated.

All over the world there were examples of sudden appearance of new species, fully formed, without precedent.

And dopes like you are still bowing to Darwin.




Now....didn't I suggest that a hundred posts ago?
...while you and the coterie of dopes were embarrassing yourselves.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where's my pal rosie- the one who doesn't understand DNA and mutations.

I have one more post for her.

 

[Tuatara]

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

She'a a creationist. She's copying and pasting Creationist websites and the first person she quoted Phillip E. Johnson, is a creationist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did. Both the Gould and

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

She'a a creationist. She's copying and pasting Creationist websites and the first person she quoted Phillip E. Johnson, is a creationist.

Oooooo....look!
You ignored my challenge to show the quotes were out of context.

I put you in your place, huh?

"Quote mining".....an excuse for losers who can't refute my argument.

So....we agree that you are a simpleton?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

You can try to change the subject....you are being thoroughly thrashed.....but I won't allow it.

You've become the human piñata!

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Here's a confirmation of Gould's fundamental belief in speciation, which your cult depends so much on denying:

Stephen Jay Gould (1973), who died recently, was a major champion of the idea that speciation often precedes as relatively short bursts of accelerated evolution followed by long periods of stasis (low rate of change). "Punctuated equilibrium" is the term describing this paleontologically derived view of the evolutionary process.


Speciation

As I wrote earlier, Gould was the go-to guy for neo-Darwinists....and an atheist and a Marxist.

His bogus 'punctuated equilibrium' was the science version of Karl Marx's thesis on history.

He made it up both as homage to Marx, and because the evidence piled up that evolution was not a gradual process due to random changes, as Darwin postulated.

All over the world there were examples of sudden appearance of new species, fully formed, without precedent.

And dopes like you are still bowing to Darwin.




Now....didn't I suggest that a hundred posts ago?
...while you and the coterie of dopes were embarrassing yourselves.

There is no evidence of species appearing out of nowhere. There is evidence of rapid evolution. There are cases where the lack of evidence makes it appear that species came out of nowhere.

Gould believed in evolution. He did not believe in animals falling out of the sky.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I did. Both the Gould and

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

She'a a creationist. She's copying and pasting Creationist websites and the first person she quoted Phillip E. Johnson, is a creationist.

Oooooo....look!
You ignored my challenge to show the quotes were out of context.

I put you in your place, huh?

"Quote mining".....an excuse for losers who can't refute my argument.

So....we agree that you are a simpleton?

Your quote by Gould about fully formed species was out of context.

 

[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.

All he does is make the case for rapid evolution.

You're a moron.

Every one of these silly threads you have opened and drenched with phony "quotes" leaves you spitting out invectives when you're "quotes" are shown to be frauds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

All he does is make the case for rapid evolution.

You're a moron.

Every one of these silly threads you have opened and drenched with phony "quotes" leaves you spitting out invectives when you're "quotes" are shown to be frauds.

She obsesses on Darwin as if the theory of evolution began and ended with the work of Darwin.

It's like arguing against the practical value of the Ford Model T.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context.

btw, you left this out of your Gould bio:

According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[10]

lol

1. "No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context."
A lie.

2. "btw, you left this out of your Gould bio
Another sort of lie.....I left nothing out that had to do with Darwin.

You left out his endorsement of Darwinism as the basic platform for the theory of evolution, such as in this:

"Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply."[35]

Of course he's a Darwinist.

He just disproves Darwin....and you're too stupid to catch on.

No he doesn't. Darwin believed in evolution. Gould believed in evolution. You don't. You're an idiot.

 

[Hollie]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

Yet another fraud you perpetuate on behalf of your creationist ministries. This is yet another fraud you had dumped into previous threads wherein you were called out as an accomplice to fraud.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis

Quote #37 exposes once again the dishonest nature of creationists and their willingness to lie and deceive to further their agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did. Both the Gould and

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

She'a a creationist. She's copying and pasting Creationist websites and the first person she quoted Phillip E. Johnson, is a creationist.

Oooooo....look!
You ignored my challenge to show the quotes were out of context.

I put you in your place, huh?

"Quote mining".....an excuse for losers who can't refute my argument.

So....we agree that you are a simpleton?

Your quote by Gould about fully formed species was out of context.

I quoted his exact words.

Unnecessary as it is, let me prove you're a liar, NYLiar:

“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. All major theories of speciation maintain that splitting takes place rapidly in very small populations. The theory of geographic, or allopatric, speciation is preferred by most evolutionists for most situations (allopatric means ‘in another place’). A new species can arise when a small segment of the ancestral population is isolated at the periphery of the ancestral range. Large, stable central populations exert a strong homogenizing influence. New and favorable mutations are diluted by the sheer bulk of the population through which they must spread. They may build slowly in frequency, but changing environments usually cancel their selective value long before they reach fixation. Thus, phyletic transformation in large populations should be very rare — as the fossil record proclaims. But small, peripherally isolated groups are cut off from their parental stock. They live as tiny populations in geographic corners of the ancestral range. Selective pressures are usually intense because peripheries mark the edge of ecological tolerance for ancestral forms. Favorable variations spread quickly. Small peripheral isolates are a laboratory of evolutionary change.

“What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendant species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.”

— "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change,"The Panda's Thumb: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, pp. 182-184.


So...now you're in the simpleton category with the guitar guy.

Birds of a feather, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
“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. […]

That's as far as you needed to go to refute your own use of Gould to try to disprove Darwinism.

 

[Hollie]

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

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


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.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

What I've found is that searching for the edited "quotes" she cuts and pastes into these threads will link to the most extreme of the fundamentalist Christian ministries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Her denial that this is about creationism is easily disproven by her once upon a time claim that science had vindicated Genesis.

lol