Summations Only

Of course gradualism is fundamental to ToE - does a fish grow a foot overnight?Different rates of gradualism is still gradualism.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Is that good or bad?Besides that, you didn't answer my question.

Do you really think you can defeat the theory of evolution with nonsense such as that? I mean, really?

You have a real problem with English meanings. Gradualism in this context does not mean what you think. gradualism:

quote:

---

In the natural sciences, gradualism is the theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism. The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism. Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.

---

Growing a foot overnight would be saltation. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

ROFLOL ... do you mean growing 12 inches or growing a new appendage?Individual growth rates have absolutely nothing to do with rates of population evolution and nothing to do with ToE.Growing a new appendage would be the "hopeful monster" of creationist imaginary and false understanding of evolution. So the slow rate of gradualism during periods of relative stassis in a population, and the higher rate of gradualism during periods if punctuation in a population ... are still gradualism. Punk-eek is not the "hopeful monster" of fevered creationist imagination.This is actually what Dawkin's argued in counter to Gould's punk-eek claim. Glad you sorted that out.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

See "mutation". But it does take a while for the feet to spread out into a population.

Does a fish species undergo rapid speciation events causing more rapid changes in phenotype? Yep. Does that falsify the theory of evolution? Nope. Both punctuated equilibria and gradualism fit just fine in the theory of evolution.

So in the sense in which you now mean gradualism, Darwin was absolutely right, Gould too is a gradualist, and the fossil record supports gradualism?

Lying is bad, Dredge. Yes I did, Dredge. You asked what I meant. I told you.

The geological and fossil record is not evidence of "evolution" but of successive divine creations that existed and were destroyed before the "six days" of creation described in Genesis. This creation we live in now will in turn be replaced by another creation - "a new heaven and a new earth" mentioned in Revelation 21.

fixed it for you another failurehow many times before they get it right or they get fired for incompetence?

Well, that's a peculiar daydream, Dredge. Do you have any evidence for it? Or any conceivable explanation for God's motivations in behaving in such a way?Talk us through this. Take the evolution of birds, for example. According to your notions, God kept creating one lot of birds, destroying them, and then replacing them with slightly less basal-dinosaur-y birds, yes? And then did that again and again, right?When you talk about "successive creations" does that mean that every time he destroyed a batch of birds he also destroyed all the other species alive at that time, only to carefully put them back along with the new model birds?Either way, why did he do all this? Presumably an omnipotent being knew what he was aiming for, why not just make modern birds to start with? The sole effect of his approach seems to be that he successfully fooled scientists into thinking that evolution had taken place. But why would he want to?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Now you are just yanking our chain. That is up into a Trumpian realm of absurdity.

What a truly pathetic little deity you try to sell; utterly incompetent and not even able to do anything successfully. Why would anyone even laugh at a God that is that pathetic and picayune? The best is to pity your God and you for buying such a worthless product.Plus it's obvious you do not even believe in the Bible but rather like all Biblical Christians simply ignore what is written in the Bible stories.Or maybe you are like most Bible Christians that have simply never honestly read the Bible?