Foundations of ID

quote:

---

However, I, unlike most of my fellow agnostics, am willing to listen to the other side, rather than merely read about the other side on Panda's Thumb or some other biased site.

---

Unbiased readers might like to compare this remark with Limbo's performance in this thread:
http://EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature -->EvC Forum: ID and the bias inherent in human nature

quote:

---

Gould and Eldredge did not do what would be expected by those that espouse the scientific method. Instead, with no experimentation what-so-ever and not even a scientific observation in their belly, they came up with a new "theory" to explain the fact that the fossil record didn't support their previous one. NOTHING, still today, supports punk eek as empirical evidence, and they have left in their wake a dissed Darwin rolling over in his grave

---

That is seriously in error.Gould and Eldredge produced punk eq by applying current evolutionary theory to the fossil record. And they came up with evidence to support it. About the only serious mistake they made was to attribute extreme gradualism to Darwin.

Evidence for punctuated equilibria ? How about Eldredge and Gould's original paper setting out the idea ? Or Cheetham's paper "Tempo of Evolution in Neogene Bryzoa" (1986) ?Darwin was a gradualist in the same sense that Eldredge is and Gould was. Punc eq is a gradualist theory. What it is opposed to is an extreme form of gradualism - that Darwin himself rejected.http://pages.britishlibrary.net/...gin_6th/origin6th_15.html

Well if you haven't even heard of Cheetham's paper, then how can you tell that there is no evidence for punc eq ? Have you even read Eldredge and Gould's original paper ?

quote:

---

You mean you cannot come up with a single peer-reviewed research paper to support a fact of science?

---

So you are complaining that I mentioned 2 papers instead of only 1 ? What sense does that make ?

quote:

---

Nah....Darwin didn't reject gradualism he necessitated it:

---

I didnt say that Darwin was not a gradualist. I said that Darwin rejected the EXTREME form of gradualism wrongly attributed to him be Eldredge and Gould. Darwin was a gradualist in the same way that punc eq. is a gradualist theory.

What do you want ? Full references ?Here they are:Eldredge and Gould (1972):
Punctuated Equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism
In T J Schopf (Ed) Models in Paleobiology pp82-115
Freeman, Cooper & Co, San FranciscoCheetham A (1986):
Tempo of evolution in a Neogene bryozoan: rates of morphological change within and across species boundaries.
Paleobiology 12:199-202The Eldredge and Gould paper is available online, free of charge. The Cheetham paper costs money.

Of course I don't need the paper itself. The simple fact that you have not even heard of it, when I found it in a few minutes indicates that you are not sufficiently familiar with the literature to claim what is and what is not in it.

From your Message 94

quote:

---

NOTHING, still today, supports punk eek as empirical evidence

---

Yet you won't even discuss the evidence in the Eldredge and Gould paper which is freely avialable on line. Your sole argument on that paper seems to be:

quote:

---

a paper setting out an idea is not scientific research supporting that idea

---

Did it even occur to you that a scientiifc paper setting out an idea is, by it's nature as a scientiifc paper likely to include empirical evidence in support of that idea ?On the Cheetham paper, you make statements like:

quote:

---

I could not find the latter paper via PubMed or Google

---

But none dealing with the content - so clearly you are unfamiliar with it.So essentially your position is that since you refuse to read any scientific papers containing evidnece for punc eq, no such papers exist.