Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links"

To focus the discussion on this reference as I think it deserves I've lifted the start from the Creationist charts thread and copied it here.The thread is here:
New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...This post is lifted from
Message 14The off topic dicussion continues from there.Those who wish to discuss it may copy responses here.I would like everyone to go slow and do a good job of the analysis. Do not confuse things more. Thanks.Missing LinksThis mainstream evolutionary biologists essentially admits there are no 'missing links' and says change happened suddenly..."No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says"EXCERPTS:"Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link.""...However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz."Article here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2007/02/070210170623.htm-Here is Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz personal page on the University of Pittsburg website:Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh-Edited by AdminNosy, : implement admin suggestions

I don't want to argue the issue. If I do I can't try to moderate it.

I was trying to save off topic discussions somewhere else and save our newbie some time.Closed due to lack of interest.

.

So you say. How about actually showing how it is out of context?You might do this by either showing the Schwartz wasn't saying what he is supposed to be saying or that he is but it doesn't matter as much as the poster thinks it does.

Refpunk, Several posters have noted that you are off topic in this thread. If you want to rant about the definition of animals (or any other taxonomic issue) please start a new thread on that.You will not be allowed to post randomly so pick your posts more carefully. I also suggest that you take EvC as an opportunity to learn about many topics which you obviously know nothing about.You next randomly off topic post will earn you a days suspension.

I think you are getting w a y ahead of refpunk. No one has justified the Linnean hierarchy to him yet.I think if someone is patient enough (and foolish enough) they can try to explain this from a much, much simpler level.