Dredge writes:
I can't accept that Gould would not consider "sudden appearance" and "stasis" to be evidence of creation. If not "sudden appearance" and "stasis", then one wonders, what would he consider to be evidence of creation?
A few off the top of my head:
A rabbit in Cambrian strata.
A species with a mixture of bird and mammal features.
A mammal with many genes that have nearly 100% homology to jellyfish, but a lack of those same genes in other mammals.