Summations Only

So you quote Niles and Gould, two evolutionists, as support for your position that evolution is disproved. Did that not strike you as odd? That the people you are quoting concluded the exact opposite than you have seems to suggest they know or at least believe something you don't, right? But your debate opening simply does not include discussion of this, as if you were ignorant of it somehow.But this is unusual, as these ideas have been known and accepted for decades. Did you earnestly think we were unaware of these things? If not, why did you not tackle modern evolutionary thinking as part of building your case?Punctuated equilibrium is an attack not on evolution, but on something akin to phyletic gradualism.

quote:

---

Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual. When evolution occurs in this mode, it is usually by the steady transformation of a whole species into a new one (through a process called anagenesis). In this view no clear line of demarcation exists between an ancestral species and a descendant species, unless splitting occurs.

---

(from wiki)As Darwin said:

quote:

---

These several facts accord well with our theory, which includes no fixed law of development, causing all the inhabitants of an area to change abruptly, or simultaneously, or to an equal degree. The process of modification must be slow, and will generally affect only a few species at the same time; for the variability of each species is independent of that of all others. Whether such variations or individual differences as may arise will be accumulated through natural selection in a greater or less degree, thus causing a greater or less amount of permanent modification, will depend on many complex contingencies--on the variations being of a beneficial nature, on the freedom of intercrossing, on the slowly changing physical conditions of the country, on the immigration of new colonists, and on the nature of the other inhabitants with which the varying species come into competition. Hence it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, should change in a less degree. We find similar relations between the existing inhabitants of distinct countries; for instance, the land-shells and coleopterous insects of Madeira have come to differ considerably from their nearest allies on the continent of Europe, whereas the marine shells and birds have remained unaltered. We can perhaps understand the apparently quicker rate of change in terrestrial and in more highly organised productions compared with marine and lower productions, by the more complex relations of the higher beings to their organic and inorganic conditions of life, as explained in a former chapter. When many of the inhabitants of any area have become modified and improved, we can understand, on the principle of competition, and from the all-important relations of organism to organism in the struggle for life, that any form which did not become in some degree modified and improved, would be liable to extermination. Hence, we see why all the species in the same region do at last, if we look to long enough intervals of time, become modified; for otherwise they would become extinct.

​

In members of the same class the average amount of change, during long and equal periods of time, may, perhaps, be nearly the same; but as the accumulation of enduring formations, rich in fossils, depends on great masses of sediment being deposited on subsiding areas, our formations have been almost necessarily accumulated at wide and irregularly intermittent intervals of time; consequently the amount of organic change exhibited by the fossils embedded in consecutive formations is not equal. Each formation, on this view, does not mark a new and complete act of creation, but only an occasional scene, taken almost at hazard, in an ever slowly changing drama.

---

Eldredge and Gould just really nailed this idea down (though they were mostly under the impression that biologists were strict phyletic gradualists which may have had some limited truth to it), that's all.Their model basically supposes that one large population gets split somehow (getting stuck on an island, in an isolated rock pool or what have you). The chance of any individual being fossilized is low. It is therefore true that we are more likely to find fossils left behind of the large population than of the smaller one.But biologists have done a good job of showing that mutations are more likely to become fixed in smaller populations. So that would seem to indicate that smaller populations, if they survive long enough, are able to evolve quicker toward some solution. If this isolated area has specific demands that the other lacks in some way, we would anticipate the comparative rapid adaptation of the smaller population (as compared with the rate of change of the large population).Let us suppose this process continues for a long time, but then circumstance reunite the two populations. They are now quite different morphologically and genetically and cannot interbreed. They are thus competitors. This may play out in a number of ways, but let us consider the outcome where the smaller population acts as an invasive species and is better adapted at life in the large populations environment than they are. Then as we know from introducing invasive species ourselves, they can completely decimate the native species within a few years possibly driving them to extinction or to leave their old haunts, if they are able.The chances that any fossils exist of this changing population? Lower than the chances of fossils from the larger one. The chances that we'll find the fossils? Much greater with the larger population.But at the end - the sizes of the populations effectively invert. And now 'suddenly' the new species starts getting fossilized more often as there are more opportunities. And so, educated guesses into where to look for fossils are more likely to strike upon this new population which seems to 'suddenly' appear in the fossil record.If you were interested, these kinds of processes do have mathematical models around them, you could go look some of them up.Disproving phyletic gradualism as the normal mode of evolution does not falsify evolution. Which is why most evolutionary biologists accept evolution but do not accept phyletic gradualism. Rates of morphological change are not constant, as the rates depend on complex contingencies. The chances of us finding fossils is related to the number of fossils there are, and the area we're searching over. Small isolated populations leave less fossils in a smaller area making coming across them quite improbable. Therefore - we should expect to see new paleo-species 'appear' quite suddenly in our limited fossil record if evolution works how we believe it does.

So you'd be happy with us taking a snippet of something you said, and making it appear that you are taking the opposite stance from what you have. You wouldn't complain that your words are being twisted or anything, as long as what you said has implications for evolutionist/atheist views then that would be a perfectly valid strategy?After all, did Faith not concede that faith was discredited?

quote:

---

"But does this discredit faith?" Yes, I would say, it certainly does.

---

Typical. I write 1200 words directly to you describing why you are wrong, and you respond to this short piece of rhetoric to someone else. You are not being accused of changing them, you are being accused of asserting they are saying something they are not (OK, I will accuse you of perpetuating a dishonest edit to the text later on). You asserted they are saying 'NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis. ', but instead what they are saying is 'not normally gradual evolution, but punctuated by comparatively long periods of stasis' - which is a possibility Darwin acknowledged 100 years prior to Gould. No they don't. Which is why the paleontologists you quoted actually accept, as a fact, that life on earth has changed over time. Indeed, even creationists before Darwin thought that life on earth changed over time (catastrophism - there were several creation events separated by catastrophes, Noah's being the latest.)As I have already explained (and a token amount research on your part would confirm) that the punctuated equilibrium evident in the fossil record disconfirms phyletic gradualism as the normal mode of evolution.It does not disprove evolution, it confirms it, as those same people you quote say elsewhere. See Message 8 for more details. Your quotes are about as old as I am. I am probably more familiar with them than you and have long grown 'used' to them.Its funny how creationists think they can disprove a scientific theory by selectively quoting people talking about it. Its this urge to find the right chapter and verse to show it is all nonsense. But that's not how we really go about establishing facts. If Darwin can be quoted as having written 'Evolution is just a parlour game me and Emily used to play that got out of hand', that still would not disprove evolution. You need to refer to the actual evidence and make inferences from that. Hahaha. No, it doesn't contradict Darwin. Not in any important ways. It obviously contradicts some things he said, but anybody writing anything based on the fossil record in the 19th century has been wrong about something.It relentlessly confirms evolution, and disconfirms a singular special creation with a singular near extinction event.

quote:

---

Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates.

---

Gould -A Quahog is a QuahogOh look,there's that same paleontologist/evolutionist saying NOT that there is NO evolution but that change is a rapid transition between stable states. Strange, almost what we've been telling you is this paleontologist's position all along.

quote:

---

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. 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.)

---

Gould again, emphasis mine. Once more it is clear from his words here that he is not saying that there is NO evolution. Instead he is saying there is NO gradualism Exactly what I said earlier, right? That's from the Panda's Thumb. Isn't that something you quoted from in your OP?Where is that quote in the essay? That important piece of context that blows your reading out of the water? Oh yeah, its right in the middle of the bit you quoted, but you neglected to quote that bit. Academic honesty and all, it's your responsibility to check your quotes at the original where feasible, rather than relying on websites. Let's look at what you quoted:

quote:

---

Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism

---

Where did my quote come from, giving his argument the important context that he's not talking about NO evolution but (generally) NO gradualism? Oh yeah, my quote is where those ellipsis (in red) towards the end are. Sir, I charge you with dishonestly removing important context that completely undermines what you think these people are saying.Indeed, I was able to find this whole section on google booksSo take a look and tell me these are the words of someone who would hold the belief 'the fossil record shows NO evolution'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

It was 'answered' in Message 31. I'll save you the click through if you like: It is made up or its fraudulent. Yep, it's that good. 'Real' paleontologists know that Eliyahu is right.

The fossil record shows that life has not changed over time? Interesting. So you can show that humans show up throughout the fossil record? That rabbits lived at the same time as Isoxys? That lifeforms prior to the K-T boundary are identical to those after?Because that's not a simple fact, is it? No, that would not be the opposite of evolution. Evolution states that life has changed over time. New species appearing and existing species going extinct is a change in life on earth over time. And Gould and Eldredge, far from angering the scientific world for exposing their lies, were regarded highly for the rest of their lives and beyond. The worst critic of theirs (such as Dawkins) was more or less saying that they didn't propose anything all that revolutionary from biologist's perspective.How do you explain the fossil record then? Does god change life over time by occasionally magicking/moulding them into existence? Could you give a detailed account of how this happens that is in accordance with established knowledge of the universe? Because Gould and Eldredge managed to disprove gradualism as the normal mode of evolution using reason and evidence. I know you've confused gradualism and evolution, but nothing in evolutionary theory necessitates phyletic gradualism for it to work no matter what you say. That's a nice narrative you've constructed. I'm sure it confirms what you believed all along and everything, right?How have we handled it poorly? Should we have taken a look at facts we have been aware of for years and suddenly bow to your superior copy-paste skills? It's not like you've provided much in the way of argument here is it? Your opening post was a series of quotes and a declaration of victory. Since then you've simply been repeating the position that the quotes give you victory without addressing any of the evidence of the fossil record itself, what mode evolution must take based on using reason applied to the modern theory and so on. You've done no decent work in proving your claims of conclusively disproving evolution by reference to the fossil record, as you've not actually referenced the fossil record. Just quotes. Quotes don't disprove theories. You didn't just repeat their statements, you said untrue things based on them. For instance 'the fossil record conclusively disproves evolution' which is not what the 'high profile' evolutionists said at all. What would count as 'linkage' that was sufficient for you to conclude that evolution occurred by means of descent with modification?Is this sufficient? Is the fact that the ear structure of pakicetus is unique to extant whales/dolphins sufficient linkage?How about this?

All those guys are talking about evolution of paleo-species and gradualism. As we've all been trying to tell you. Not evolution life as a whole.We've tackled some of the quotes. Let's look at some key parts of the others

quote:

---

a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change

---

quote:

---

The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change

---

quote:

---

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion

---

quote:

---

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another

---

quote:

---

The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition

---

quote:

---

nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution

---

quote:

---

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.

---

quote:

---

Darwin’s postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology.

---

quote:

---

Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.

---

quote:

---

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record

---

All these guys were talking about their case against gradualism and the like. So really, all we have is a debate about the rate of evolution. Is it constant and very slow, or is it comparatively fast with periods of morphological stability? You mean, if the evidence was different we'd come to different conclusions? We're so awful. What do you mean? That no matter where we look in the fossil record, all we see are modern species?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Have you considered that you may be wrong in understanding them? Why is it that those that interpret them as you do are so overwhelmingly Abrahamic in their faith? Do you think there might be a pattern?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No - it just alters your interpretation of the quotes. The quotees disagree with the position you are trying to defend: That the fossil record COMPLETELY disproves evolution. That there is NO evolution.The quotes don't say anything about this. They just talk about the history of evolution as being mostly morphological stasis.And that's what the full context tells us. They aren't saying this disproves evolution (your claim) but that this disproves gradualism as the normal mode of evolution. Something you have failed to address.We're nearly 150 posts in and you haven't provided any evidence for your debate position. Just some quotes which don't support it. It's not looking good, but there's still time! Here you are admitting that they don't agree with your debate thesis. You say they are not telling the truth. So what is the truth? What evidence do you have that actually verifies this is true? Let's call it a lie. A lie about what? Gradualism. It is disputed that people lied about gradualism, but let's just go with it for the moment. Does this show that evolution is disproved?No. What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution? The quote was talking about gradualism, not evolution. Where have you got this idea from? Really? But you haven't provided any evidence that the science is wrong. Because we've been doing this for years, and the same quotes are used to imply people are saying things they are not. To the point where at least one of the authors quoted spoke publically against the practice.You are implying what they say is a problem for evolution. Yet it is not.You also plagiarised these people, which is the among the worst intellectual crimes you can commit in debate and thesis building, and then didn't aplogize when you were caught. So yeah, we're going gore you for these kinds of things. You haven't provided any facts of life, just quotes from people. You've studiously avoided talking about the actual physical facts of the universe - instead chosen to talk about your interpretation of authors and how they lie to keep their jobs whenever they say something that disagrees with your thesis.Let's talk about the facts of life shall we?Does the fossil record show that life on earth has changed as time as progressed?Or does the fossil record show that the life in lowest and therefore oldest strata is identical in composition to extant modern life (with some allowances for 'change within a baramin')?Don't let that red haze stop you! Confront this fact of life. Ah - so there it is. We're the immoral animalistic primitives. Got it.
Actually I don't believe we can do whatever we feel like, without reckoning. If I murdered someone there is a decent chance that the Higher Authority would cause me to lose friends, family and my liberty.That Higher Authority is society, the social contract, the justice system etc.It doesn't claim perfection, but does have the advantage of being something I can provide evidence for, were I to be arguing in favour of it in a debate.Can you demonstrate that the fossil record CONCLUSIVELY disproves evolution? OR can you only show that quotes can be disputably interpreted to question the motives of scientists and look like evolution faces a problem?

Periods of morphological stasis is part of the history of life, just as much as the periods of change. No. You have them saying it shows the opposite of gradualism. Nope. I told you the answer, the person you quoted gave you the answer. Try again. Where in his book? In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory. You said this twice without supporting it. I've read it and I don't remember him saying that. It's freely available on line, why don't you find him doing this and quote it to me along with the edition and chapter number. Thanks. They were talking about gradualism being wrong not evolution. Many of us have shown this. Except that isn't a fact. I believe THEM. I don't believe YOU when you say the fossil record completely disproves evolution. Fun fact: Fossils are in the universe. Thus facts about fossils, are facts about our universe. You see that last sentence there? That's your interpretation. I see you weren't aware you doing it, so I thought I'd help you out. Evos actually point to somewhere about 3.4 billion years ago, by the way.But you cite the Cambrian era. Can you find any modern fish or cetaceans co-existing with Cambrian flora/fauna in the fossil record? Except the people you quote do not agree. Stefan said that the sudden diversificatin of marine life is the closest thing we have to creation stories. Not that the fossil record confirms creationism or disconfirms evolution. This is a claim, which if true, would win you the debate.So support it. Just an ape? Yeah, I'm just one of the most complex and interesting things known in the universe. Not completely true. ANY human has a tendency towards criminality if the benefits outweigh the risks, what they believe is the highest authority does not seem to make much of a difference.The reason why he may not, though, is that he is a social animal and has evolved to mix strategies of cooperating with society and cheating society. Ah yes, the book that explains cooperative behaviour with recourse to genes which have no regard for others. I'm not sure how 'quote-wars' are supposed to work as I find them pointless. If I was to find quotes of people that said the fossil record shows evolution, would that make me win?Because really you've shown us that finely graded change does not show in the fossil record. That's all. But we've known that for a long time.

You admit Darwin is not telling us to ignore the fossil record. So when I said 'Really?' you should have said 'No, not really' and instead you didn't tell the truth and said 'Really.'I see you didn't support your claim that all life appeared suddenly 500 million years ago and that there has been no change to life, no new species, since then. I guess that wasn't true, either.

What do you mean 'really new concepts' didn't turn up? Are you saying there were mammals in the Cambrian? Dinosaurs? Birds? Primates?What turned up in the Cambrian were primitive chordates, in actuality.So what we have there is this. Do you think that since this form was around no 'really new concepts' have evolved? How about 'certain organisms don't fossilize nearly as well as others', which is Dawkins' position:

quote:

---

...the free-living tubellarian worms, of which there are more than four thousand species; that’s about as numerous as all the mammal species put togetherThey are common, both in water and on land, and presumably have been common for a very long time. You’d expect, therefore, to see a rich fossil history. Unfortunately, there is almost nothing. Apart from a handful of ambiguous trace fossils, not a single fossil flatworm has ever been found...in this case, ‘the very first time they appear’ is not the Cambrian but today. Do you see what this means, or at least ought to mean for creationists? Creationists believe that flatworms were created in the same week as all other creatures. They have therefore had exactly the same time in which to fossilise as all other animals. ... If the gap before the Cambrian Explosion is used as evidence that most animals suddenly sprang into existence in the Cambrian, exactly the same ‘logic’ should be used to prove that the flatworms sprang into existence yesterday. Yet this contradicts the creationist’s belief that flatworms were created during the same creative week as everything else. You cannot have it both ways. This argument, at a stroke, completely destroys the creationist case that the Precambrian gap in the fossil record weakens the evidence for evolution.

---

--The Greatest Show on EarthAll you need to do, is to show that life on earth has not changed since the Cambrian. That will completely disprove evolution. Even if God created the phyla, that still does not discredit the notion that they have changed since the creation.Is that what you want to say 'that the baramin were approximately at the phyla level'? Presumably humans aren't chordata and we're in our own unique phylum? Are there any human fossilized remains in Cambrian aged rocks?

There are a number of different working definitions of species, depending on context. For example, if we strictly and exclusively follow your definition there are no species of asexual reproducers at all!When examining ancient species, the idea of a paleospecies is formed. A paleospecies is defined basically as a group of organisms that vary within the norms of extant species. If they lived millions of years apart, that also helps define them as separate species, too.There is no TRUE definition of species. It's an arbitrary label we use as a tool to understanding and discussing nature.