Why Darwin?

[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.

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

Of course. It goes without saying she's trying to discredit evolution as a means to elevate creationism.

Why not just admit that? Most creationists wear that title proudly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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



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

Never, huh?

 

[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.

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




Waiting.

Did you not read the links I provided. The show all the quote minig you offered plus many more. I don't need to hold your hand and tell you how far you need to scroll down the page. Better yet read the whole body of work. You are always asking questions and anytime you are presented with the answer you squirm your way out of it and throw out a few ad-hominems. When you are finally shown the errors of your rantings and postings you feebly throw out comments like "So....what brings you, then?" as if that were an actual attempt at any kind of rebuttal.

 

[Hollie]

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 theses threads will link to the most extreme of the fundamentalist Christian ministries.

Of course. It goes without saying she's trying to discredit evolution as a means to elevate creationism.

Why not just admit that? Most creationists wear that title proudly.

Let's see if PC will post the creationist General Theory of Special Creation. There must..... somewhere..... exist such a robust compilation of data that her fundamentalist ministries can submit to the journal Nature, for example to meet peer review by the science community.

 

[Tuatara]

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

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



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

Never, huh?

Another creationist website, who would have ever thought? Institutes Summit Semester - Summit Ministries

 

[Hollie]

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

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



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

Never, huh?

Uh oh. Not the bolded text, thing.

 

[Hollie]

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

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



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

Never, huh?

Another creationist website, who would have ever thought? Institutes Summit Semester - Summit Ministries

Her next cut and paste will be configured to implicate Gould as a commie.

It's all formula at this point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well....no rosie.....

Anyway....
A lesson from genetics:

Well....what if we alter the DNA in the laboratory...you know, to model what Darwin predicted would cause evolution......it can be done with drugs, or with radiation...

....would we get new species????


Nope.


16. . "Recent studies in which DNA was altered showed an amazing regression to original form.

In a detailed study of the human cell reprogramming process, a group including CiRA researcher Tsuyoshi Tanabe, lecturer Kazutoshi Takahashi, and ProfessorShinya Yamanakahas demonstrated that a major obstacle to the creation of iPS cells [ induced pluripotent stem cell.] lies in the maturation stage of the reprogrammingprocess.


The results showed that somatic cell reprogramming is initiated in a large proportion (12-24%) of cells into which reprogramming factors are introduced. However, the success rate of complete reprogramming to ultimately create iPS cells is only around 0.2%, which led the researchers to hypothesize that it was not the initiation of reprogramming, but a later-stage process, that was the obstacle.

"Fig. 1

Photograph showing cells in which reprogramming has been initiated but which are beginning to revert to their state prior to the initiation of reprogramming. "
Research Activities 2013 News Newsroom CiRA Center for iPS Cell Research and Application Kyoto University




It seems be evidence of the fixity of species, and evidence against Darwin's assumptions.


BTW.....that is exactly what Darwin's contemporaries said:

"Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive. "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor The Institute for Creation Research




Yet, as this thread shows, the indoctrinated.....the 'useful idiots' become crazed when Darwin is questioned.

So....why the infatuation with a failed, or at least unsupported, theory?

Why Darwin?

The answer is in the OP.

 

[G.T.]

Thread failed as suspected.

THATS why I came by. Just to make sure.

Quoting people out of context, hacking up with ad homs, you blew your wad of ignorance on evolution once again.

Youre also a coward. Cuz ya ARE a creationist by process of elimination and cognitive observation - and wont admit it because youre ashamed you cannot adequately defend it.

Fat fuggin fail thread.

 

[Hollie]

Well....no rosie.....

Anyway....
A lesson from genetics:

Well....what if we alter the DNA in the laboratory...you know, to model what Darwin predicted would cause evolution......it can be done with drugs, or with radiation...

....would we get new species????


Nope.


16. . "Recent studies in which DNA was altered showed an amazing regression to original form.

In a detailed study of the human cell reprogramming process, a group including CiRA researcher Tsuyoshi Tanabe, lecturer Kazutoshi Takahashi, and ProfessorShinya Yamanakahas demonstrated that a major obstacle to the creation of iPS cells [ induced pluripotent stem cell.] lies in the maturation stage of the reprogrammingprocess.


The results showed that somatic cell reprogramming is initiated in a large proportion (12-24%) of cells into which reprogramming factors are introduced. However, the success rate of complete reprogramming to ultimately create iPS cells is only around 0.2%, which led the researchers to hypothesize that it was not the initiation of reprogramming, but a later-stage process, that was the obstacle.

"Fig. 1

Photograph showing cells in which reprogramming has been initiated but which are beginning to revert to their state prior to the initiation of reprogramming. "
Research Activities 2013 News Newsroom CiRA Center for iPS Cell Research and Application Kyoto University




It seems be evidence of the fixity of species, and evidence against Darwin's assumptions.


BTW.....that is exactly what Darwin's contemporaries said:

"Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive. "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor The Institute for Creation Research




Yet, as this thread shows, the indoctrinated.....the 'useful idiots' become crazed when Darwin is questioned.

So....why the infatuation with a failed, or at least unsupported, theory?

Why Darwin?

The answer is in the OP.

The "Institute for Creation Research"? That's your source?

The "Institute for the Silly" is hardly a credible source.

 

[Hollie]

Well....no rosie.....

Anyway....
A lesson from genetics:

Well....what if we alter the DNA in the laboratory...you know, to model what Darwin predicted would cause evolution......it can be done with drugs, or with radiation...

....would we get new species????


Nope.


16. . "Recent studies in which DNA was altered showed an amazing regression to original form.

In a detailed study of the human cell reprogramming process, a group including CiRA researcher Tsuyoshi Tanabe, lecturer Kazutoshi Takahashi, and ProfessorShinya Yamanakahas demonstrated that a major obstacle to the creation of iPS cells [ induced pluripotent stem cell.] lies in the maturation stage of the reprogrammingprocess.


The results showed that somatic cell reprogramming is initiated in a large proportion (12-24%) of cells into which reprogramming factors are introduced. However, the success rate of complete reprogramming to ultimately create iPS cells is only around 0.2%, which led the researchers to hypothesize that it was not the initiation of reprogramming, but a later-stage process, that was the obstacle.

"Fig. 1

Photograph showing cells in which reprogramming has been initiated but which are beginning to revert to their state prior to the initiation of reprogramming. "
Research Activities 2013 News Newsroom CiRA Center for iPS Cell Research and Application Kyoto University




It seems be evidence of the fixity of species, and evidence against Darwin's assumptions.


BTW.....that is exactly what Darwin's contemporaries said:

"Paleontologist Louis Agassiz knew the fossil record better than any man alive. "He recognized that the problem with Darwinism was not the survival of the fittest, but rather the arrival of the fittest. Agassiz knew, as did most all animal and plant breeders both then and today, that clear limits exist to variation and no known way exists to go beyond these limits in spite of 4,000 years of trying. ....all mutations known to us cannot even begin to produce the variety required for molecules to mankind evolution, but rather they create 'monstrosities, and the occurrence of these, under disturbing influences, are…only additional evidence of the fixity of species. '"
Louis Agassiz Anti-Darwinist Harvard Paleontology Professor The Institute for Creation Research




Yet, as this thread shows, the indoctrinated.....the 'useful idiots' become crazed when Darwin is questioned.

So....why the infatuation with a failed, or at least unsupported, theory?

Why Darwin?

The answer is in the OP.

Jean Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)

A reference to someone alive during this century, perhaps?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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


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


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and


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.

Did you not read the links I provided. The show all the quote minig you offered plus many more. I don't need to hold your hand and tell you how far you need to scroll down the page. Better yet read the whole body of work. You are always asking questions and anytime you are presented with the answer you squirm your way out of it and throw out a few ad-hominems. When you are finally shown the errors of your rantings and postings you feebly throw out comments like "So....what brings you, then?" as if that were an actual attempt at any kind of rebuttal.

You moron.

That's like saying that having an education is unfair.

I can see why you'd say that.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Did you not read the links I provided. The show all the quote minig you offered plus many more. I don't need to hold your hand and tell you how far you need to scroll down the page. Better yet read the whole body of work. You are always asking questions and anytime you are presented with the answer you squirm your way out of it and throw out a few ad-hominems. When you are finally shown the errors of your rantings and postings you feebly throw out comments like "So....what brings you, then?" as if that were an actual attempt at any kind of rebuttal.

You moron.

That's like saying that having an education is unfair.

I can see why you'd say that.

No you illiterate dork, he is saying youre ineducable. Which isnt fully accurate, youre obviously quite gullible/susceptible to propoganda.

 

[orogenicman]

1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.



3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.

Hardly.

There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.

Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.


So....why Darwin?

Darwin was neither a Marxist nor a socialist. Marxism wasn't even a concept when Darwin was alive.

 

[Hollie]

1. Time and again graduates of government/liberal education institutions have reacted aggressively to any criticism of Dawin's theory of evolution. As has been pointed out, this is because said institutions favor Marxist anti-capitalist, anti-religion worldviews, and Darwin's thesis serves as bedrock support for this view.


a. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wroteto Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished,and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.


2. " Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17

Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.



3. To defend Darwin, said acolytes often claim that it is the only 'scientific' theory of evolution, or that it is accepted by all scientists.

Hardly.

There are many theories meant to explain all life on earth. Darwin's is called a 'bottom-up' theory, based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:

a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



Not only does the fossil record not support this view, but the discovery of the Burgess Shale, with all sorts of suddenly-appearing species, ended support of Darwin by cognoscenti.

Once more?
Evidence inveighs strongly against such a Darwinian view.


So....why Darwin?

It seems more than a little silly to "quote" Philip Johnson regarding matters of biology or paleontology when he has no training in either of those fields. He's a creationist hack.

Critiques of Phillip Johnson



Professor Lawrence Moran over at sandwalk has a well written article describing the errors, flaws and gross misrepresentations of evolutionary theory made by creationist hacks such as Johnson.

Sandwalk Phillip Johnson One of the Very Best Intelligent Design Creationists

 

[LOki]

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

I love it!


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

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

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


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




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

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

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


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

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

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

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


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


I love it.



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

"US"??//

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


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

Here ya' go.....again:

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



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

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

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

The theory of Evolution has progressed far beyond the original rudimentary theory that Darwin formulated.

Arguing against evolution by arguing against Darwin is a textbook strawman.

"...progressed..." meaning it is not correct?

Great.

My point exactly.

Evolution is the best theory of the origin and development of life on this planet, and there is no other theory that even comes close to competing.

That is the beginning, middle, and end of the discussion.

Let's stick to the premise of the OP: Darwin's theory is neither correct, nor the only theory of evolution.

6. There are various other theories posed by noted scientists. Francis Crick, of DNA fame, actually put forth the view that visitors from other planets 'dropped' life on earth. "Directed Panspermia - postulates that the roots of our form of life go back to another place in the universe, almost certainly another planet; that it had reached a very advanced form there before anything much had started here; and thatlife here was seeded by microorganisms sent on some form of spaceship by an advanced civilization.
Crick, Francis 'Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature',, p.141

Good one, huh?
How come they teach Darwin in schools.....there's just as much evidence for Crick's theory.



7. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, physicist Victor Stenger introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe."
His effort posits that something comes from nothing....so who needs Darwin's explanation.


Stenger actually suggests this :" If we have no reason to assume ours is the only life form, we also have no reason to assume that ours is the only universe. Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that case, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the evolution of our form of life."
Talk Reason arguments against creationism intelligent design and religious apologetics



8. Richard Dawkins, in “The God Delusion,” makes no secret of his disdain for those of faith, and contempt for theology. As in the case of many of our atheist scientists, they have hoped to discover laws, and endorses Stenger's multiverse idea.

Then Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”

Have you seen said statistics?


Funny stuff that fake 'scientists' put out.

Funnier yet, what you'll believe.

Too funny

ET

 

[Steven_R]

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

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



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

Never, huh?

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

 

[Steven_R]

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 Niles Eldredge


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

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


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

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

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 Niles Eldredge


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

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


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

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

Nonsense.

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


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

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

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

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


Who says so?

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

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

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

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

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


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

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

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

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

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

 

[irosie91]

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

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


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


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


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

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


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

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

Nonsense.

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


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

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

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

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


Who says so?

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

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

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

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

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


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

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

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

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

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

nice effort------but your time frames are drawn from
your over active imagination------still---A NICE EFFORT