Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?

Its not so much that it needs fossil evidence as much as it doesn't do it any favors without it. And being that we see all forms appearing abruptly, both in the fossil record and living creatures, the odds that so many of them would appear abruptly without any signs of gradation tends to lean in the direction that a macroevolutionary process never took place. This is a gross over-simplification of what the theory actually asserts and a reliance on such brevity will not excuse any gaps in the current, prevailing wisdom. Evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already existent, complex life forms. For example, if a small population of birds migrate to an isolated island, a contingent of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features that are not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, the evolution theory is uncontroversial. Afterall, this is a perfectly good and legitimate observation. But some aspire to answer much broader questions and have come to some fanciful conclusions. How we could arrive at the conclusion that because species within a certain genus have changed must somehow mean that every creature must ultimately be related by a common ancestor is so far from empirical, that I have to question what motivation lies beneath the surface. It must betray some philosophical reason in the adherent. Again, this is an over-simplification. If a species finds themselves isolated for a variety of reasons, they may experience a loss of alleles, and so lose certain characterisitcs that are generally seen in the larger, ancestral population. But in no way should we jump enormous gaps in the deductive process, concluding that a dog is going to be anything other than a dog, or cat is going to be anything other than a cat. Since there is no demonstrable evidence, whatever, of such an occurance either in the fossil record or amongst the thousands upon thousands of extant lifeforms living today, there should be no compulsion to arrive at such a lofty conclusion. I find it terribly ironic when I see pro-evolutionist camps using Mendellian genetics when it runs counter to the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian model. Case in point, reproduction allows information to combine in a variety of ways, however, it cannot produce any new information that was not already existing. It just sorts information in a new arrangement. For example, there are a plethora of canine breeds that have been bred from a mongrel stock. This shows that selecting desired traits in successive generations, such that the traits can become isolated, can produce new lines. In the original line, they were already present within that population, but may have been recessive. In the new stock, they are now being expressed. But at the end of the day (or the century, or the epoch, or the era), you're still going to have a dog. Mendellian genetics shows this quite well. What it fails to present is that if you keep breeding mongrel stock after mongrel stock, that one day a large taxonomical jump will occur. As of now, that is a metaphysical mystery and not something we find in the annals of empirical science. This is interesting to me, because I was just arguing the point that most evolutionists use the typical phylogenic tree as a basis for the theory. But to my shock, all the people that ardently supported it now turned away from it because of punctuated equilibrium. At this point in time, I just wish that someone would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms. Any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. But when the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as this does, it leaves me undesired. What genetic markers are you referring to? It sounds as if I agree with you on this on, but I'm not entirely sure what you arriving at. Could you elaborate a bit? For as many homologous sequences exist, there are many more expressions that don't coincide in any discernable or apparently relevant way. Homological theory asserts that relationships can be proven by the similarity in the anatomy and physiology of different taxinomical lines. But to me, its just like saying that a Chevy SUV and a Chevy pickup are biologically related because their dashboards are virtually identical. Are they identical because the SUV is the progeny of the pickup or that they had the same manufacturer? I know thats a crude model, but I hope it drives home a point. Afterall, we share 52% biochemical similarity with a banana. Does that mean we evolved from a fruit? No, punctuated equilibrium makes that claim, presumably to cover up the shocking lack of transitional forms that would very much have to exist for any kind of stepwise model for evolution.There is nothing in the fossil tree of relations that contradicts the theory of evolution of species through time. This validates the theory, as it passes a milestone prediction without being contradicted by the new evidence. Disproving macroevolution does not prove, by default, any special creation. However, given the enormity of demonstrable balance within nature, we can greatly assume that there is some creative force or cognizance behind the intricacy. Afterall, there are only two options from which to choose from - either life is intentional or its unintentional. If anyone can reasonably demostrate that it is highly improbable that life should continually arrange itself without any intervention, then we are inescapably driven to a latter conclusion. Agreed. Looking at the evidence and denying what we see does not make it go away. No, just the evolutionary paradigm.

Um, I can't support evidence of a negative, hence, if something doesn't exist, I can't show you tangible evidence of such, because it doesn't exist. So, you are going to have to supply some evidence of a macroevoultionary process. What if DNA is simply similar, period, by its very nature and that similarity has little to do with any percieved lineage? You know what I mean? Its completely speculative to assume that, because there are still so many gaps and gulfs affixed between the series.Case in point, (and this is an extreme example), but suppose we had a worm, a frog, and a human on display. From the standpoint of the ancestor-descendant relationship, evolutionists could state that the last common ancestor of worms and humans was more recent than the last common ancestor between Kingdom Animalia. While its obvious that the frog does bridge one gap in between worms and humans, at the end of the day, the fact remains that their would have admittedly been two, three, four, five, six, or even 100 gradualistic steps missing. Indeed, this is what the fossil record shows; creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed in various layers of strata.The same could be said of all percieved cladistic relationships. These branching diagrams, which are supposed to show a relative degree of relationships amongst living things, is based on guesswork from appearance. The nodes and branches and trunks from the phylogenic tree is based upon what, exactly? These alleged branching patterns should tell us very little. In all actuality, it would only obscure the huge morphological discontinuity which exists in gulf-sized links. And if you believe in the typical, stepwise fashion of evolution, then where does that place punctuated equilibrium? Doesn't one bring the other into disrepute?The plain fact remains that in more conventional depictions of alleged transitional forms, we still find everything fully formed. We find no organisms in any kind of evolutionary limbo. Does cladistic reconstruction tell us anything beyond, "Well, they sure do look alot alike."? I believe that we know know so much more about what mechanisms exist to give us the genetic know-how, but principly, Mendellian genetics still stand the test of time. Uh, I think the title of the original paper says it all- "Punctuated Equilibria: An alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. LOL! How ever did we arrive at such a bizarre conclusion?"how could traditional paleontology live with such a striking discordance between a theoretical expectation of gradual transition and the practical knowledge of stability and geologically abrupt appearance as the recorded history of most species? Our colleagues resolved their schizophrenia by taking refuge in a traditional argument, advanced with special ardor by Darwin himself”the gross imperfection of the fossil record. If true history is continuous and gradational, but only one step in a thousand is preserved as geological evidence, then a truly gradual sequence becomes a series of abrupt transitions. Darwin staked his whole argument on this proposition:" -Stephen J. Gould"The geological record [is] extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory" [Origin of Species, 1859]. -Charles Darwin"This resolution worked in some logical sense, but it filled Niles and me with frustration and sadness. We were young, ambitious, enthusiastic, and in love with our subject. We had trained ourselves in evolutionary theory, particularly in the application of statistical methods to the measurement of evolutionary change, and we longed to get our hands dirty with practical applications. Our colleagues had virtually defined evolution as gradual change and had then eviscerated the subject as a paleontological topic by citing the imperfection of the fossil record to explain why we never (or so very rarely) saw direct evidence for the process that supposedly made life's history. This argument did resolve a contradiction (theoretical gradualism with overt punctuation), but at a crushing price for any practicing scientist, for if evolution meant gradual change, we could not discern the very phenomenon we most wished to study." -Stephen J. GouldTop Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyAnd there, in the mans own words, he supplants the traditional, gradulaistic argument that you are still maintaining. As I've tried to share with a number of evolutionists, PE and gradualism are diametrically opposed. So, you either have to concede that evidence of transitions don't exist, (or are at least, extremely scant), or you are going to have to provide reasons why gradualism exists and then provide a wealth of evidence to support the one hundred and forty seven year assertion.At this point in time, I just wish that someone would distinguish clearly between firmly established empirical facts concerning evolution and theories about mechanisms. Any theory of the world has at most a provisional, pro tem value. It is only valid until it is falsified or a better model is proposed. But when the current favorite theory leaves as much unexplained as this does, it leaves me undesired. Since natural selection plus beneficial mutation hasn't produced new any kind of macroevolutionary process, the theory is left with nothing else. I don't believe any such mechanism exists in a strictly naturalistic sense. Therefore, I cannot present evidence of a negative. And does this similarity automatically mean that we are related? That is the question that the creationist posed to the OP in the opening argument. What evidence exists that we are the progeny of the banana tree? To me, its as asinine as saying, because we have molecules and adry cement has molecules, we must be related to a wall. Do you know what I mean? If there is nothing linking the two together, why jump to such a fantastic conclusion? Of course vehicles don't reproduce, I'm simply using that as a basis for comparing how anyone can jump to a bad conclusion even if they make a good observation. Darwin noticed that Finches seperated from the ancestral population developed new features. Awesome observation. Then he concluded that because there were different types of Finches, that every living creature must be related by a common ancestor. Whoa! Bad conclusion.The interesting thing about 'Junk DNA' is that maybe we just don't know how they code. Those Junky genes look like normal genes but do not express any RNA or protein. They apparently include crippled copies of known functional genes, of long and short interspersed repeats. I just that our understanding of what they do might be too tentative currently. Failure to observe junk DNA coding for a product under experimental conditions might not preclude that they never do so inside an organism. We also shouldn't rule out protein expression based solely on sequence information, as DNA messages can be altered by editing RNA, as it skips parts of the sequence. The current inability to code for a protein useful to an organism hardly exhausts other possible functions that this 'junk' may have. I hardly see how. If life isn't unintentional, then its intentional. There shouldn't be any ambiguity in that. Okay, but if its in least bit intentional then a Creator (whatever we shall that cognizance) exists. Atheistic evolution needs no intent to survive. No, but abiogenesis is an important piece of the puzzle for evolution. For instance, biological evolution needs cosmological evolution just to get started. And for everything to come from nothing, some type of abiogenesis had to exist at some point. Philosophically, I think we could all agree that something had to be eternal at some point.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

For starters, I also find ironic that many evolutionists routinely present the lowest forms of life on the evolutionary chain, to indicate that some sort of macroevolutionary process has occured, as opposed to an obvious and new niche in the chain in larger organisms. We all know that adaptations can and do occur peripherally. In other words, a Tabby and a Persian is a perfect example of how isolation and natural selection can cause new features. No one is contending with that. And I object to the countless erroneous examples where evolutionists use a microadaptation to support macroevolution. A creature such as Archaeopteryx would have been a perfect example of what we would expect to see, had any macroevolutionary process occured. Unfortuantely, even he makes no sense because he, himself, is missing so many required, finely-tuned gradations.But again, if you find yourself in agreement with phyletic graduation, then you find yourself in disagreement with punctuated equilibrium, and vice versa."What then is the expected geological expression of speciation in a peripherally isolated population? The answer is, and must be, punctuated equilibrium. The speciation event occurs in a geological instant and in a region of limited extent at some distance from the parental population. In other words, punctuated equilibrium”and not gradualism”is the expected geological translation for the standard account of speciation in evolutionary theory. Species arise in a geological moment”the punctuation (slow by our standards, abrupt by the planet's). They then persist as large and stable populations on substantial geological watches, usually changing little (if at all) and in an aimless fashion about an unaltered average”the equilibrium." -Stephen J. Gould I can appreciate the fact that, in the grand scheme of things, very few fossil remains exist. Its obvious that most organisms are not encased inside mud, as a preserving mechanism, rather most organisms die on the surface and are eaten by scavengers - even their bones decay. I make note of this. However, there still are millions of remains, which doesn't compare to the trillions upon trillions that assuredly must have existed, but nonetheless, millions is nothing to scoff at. And yet, we see no signs of stepwise gradation in the fossil record. As if that wasn't condemning enough, why do we not see any organism in some transitional limbo right now??? Why do we see everything as we've always known them to be? In a more simplistic way, the fact that we are even contending this should be ridiculous, because if ToE were true, it would be so ridiculously obvious, that this very argument would be trivial. Its been my experience that the the horse series is an interpretation of the data, not a solid theory on much of anything. The general interpretation of data is that their age is assigned to them, depending on their relative depth of burial. Bones found in the deepest sediment layers have the greatest ages assigned to them. For example, I live out in Oregon and what was discovered here was the three-toed Neohipparion and one-toed Pliohippus. They were found in the same layer. This indicates that they were living at the same time, and thus provides no evidence that one evolved from the other. Could they have lived during the same era? Sure why not. Except that it goes against that one supposedly lived in the Pliocene era and the other in the Miocene. If they are found intermingled in the same layer, then it either brings into disrepute the geologic column or the relatedness of these two creatures.paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson reexamined horse evolution and concluded that generations of students had been misled [by Othniel Marsh’s 1874 horse evolution paper]. In his book 'Horses,' he showed that there was no simple, gradual unilateral development at all. Marsh arranged his fossils to “lead up” to the one surviving species, blithely ignoring many inconsistencies and any contradictory evidence. Ironically, his famous reconstruction of horse evolution was copied by anthropologists.-Ernst Mayr I agree fully. That goes both ways. If majority opinion is the qualifying principle, then we should also assume that the Heliocentristic cosmological model was correct on the premise that the masses believed it so. A gained function might not truly be gained in the context that we might think. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, because it carries different forms of this gene. A specific allele for blue eyes, which is recessive, and another other can code for brown eyes, which is dominant. In other words, variation within any given populations arises more from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations, which evolution needs to propagate itself. As we expect to see, copying errors occur, degrading the overall and original genetic information. To expect to see higher intelligence and more autonomy due to copying errors would be like expecting us to copy the first page of the dictionary, and as a result of those compiled errors, that the entire dictionary forms in sequential order. In other words, I propose that most variations occur in the loss of alleles. I know what the evolutionary paradigm maintains, but unfortunately, these graduating transitions are not seen, as the eminent Gould has already shared with us. He knows it, so what the hell is everyone else's problem? No, you're right. The original model suggests that small, nominal, and perephiral changes occur slowly over time. Unfortunately, PE claims, (because no such transitions exist), asserts that most species experience long periods of stasis, and then inexplicably make a taxonomical jump. I'm not suggesting this 'jump' is like a fox to a bear. I'm not suggesting anything that wild. I'm just showing what PE states and what gradualism states, and the two are not synonymous. You say that with such assuredness without any corroborating evidence. The fact that the some irreparable cataclysm hasn't occured in the alleged 4.5 billion years of earths existence, without any maintenance whatsoever, gives 'chaos' a mind. The ecology of earth with the laws of phsyics and probablity teeters on the edge of a knife, and yet continues to sustain us with an unrivaled, symbiotic relevance. In other words, everything works together so finely, and yet disaster is always right at the door. This balance is so overwhelming that I scarcely could concieve of nothing creating that and nothing maintaining that.

I don't understand how you could interpret this as a logic fallacy. Its almost as if you're acting like a lack of corroborating evidence is some kind of circular reasoning on my part. Let me ask you, what jury would convict anyone without any evidence? What evidence for absence exists? From everyone's logical standpoint, we see a lack of evidence to support an assertion. Do you see gradual change because you want to see a gradual change, or is there actual evidence for said gradations? Evolutionary theory has always predicted that innumerable transitional forms would be found, and yet, all that has been presented is a handful of debatable forms. For this reason, Gould and Eldridge had to put their thinking caps on and brainstorm. What they came up with, was punctuated equilibrium - an assertion even in their own eyes.http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/...ssictexts/eldredge.pdf The following is actually from B16: The History of Life: Source Book --Admin"As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).

​

In a strictly logical sense, this negative explanation worked and preserved gradualism, then falsely equated with evolution itself, amidst an astonishing lack of evidence for this putative main signal of Darwinism. But think of the practical or heuristic dilemma for working paleontologists: if evolution meant gradualism, and imperfection precluded the observation of such steady change, then scientists could not access the very phenomenon that both motivated their interest and built life's history. As young, committed and ambitious parents, we therefore proposed punctuated equilibrium, hoping to validate our profession's primary data as signal rather than void. We realized that a standard biological account. Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations... Given these stringent requirements, and in the light of such an imperfect fossil record, we are delighted that so many cases have been well documented, particularly in the crucial requirement of ancestral survival after punctuated branching." -Stephen J. Gould"The fossil record is incomplete. This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography."Punctuated EquilibriaHere's my question: Why, after so many evolutionists have conceded that the fossil record is pathetically incomplete, do so many people in here still insist on telling me that it isn't so? And if it is this incomplete, and parts are missing, then what evidence is there that these creatures are inter-related to begin with, if no immediate evidence is available? Its an assertion. And for however much sense it may or may not make sense, theoretically, it is strictly another part of theoretical biology, awaiting the seal of approval. Its false because its false? As fascinating as that statement is, it is tantalyzingly incomplete, as is the evidence for macroevolution. So, because anything could happen, we should just take the theory on the basis of face value without any corroborating evidence? Listen, the evidence is overwhelmingly not in favor of macroevolution. And the evidence of such is within its lack to formulate a cogent argument for itself. So far, I've recieved nothing but conflicting views from the people on EvC. Some appear to be gradualists and others appear to be in favor of punctuated equilibira. With both parties, I've been expected to take their arguments, however weak and repetitious it might be, on the basis of conjecture. What's worse, they don't even realize that their conclusions differ greatly from their buddies conclusion, yet they claim parity. What does that mean? I've reached a conclusion not based on my own premises, containing elements not in my premises, and thus shown to be invalid? I'm sorry but could you clarify exactly what that means? At what point is the prediction going to materialize??? At what point does biological prophecy become an actuality? Things change, therefore evolution is real, unfortunatley is the extent of the argument. And even after multiple case studies of attempting to tweak genes to cause a macroevolutionary process in a pristine lab has come up null and void. If we can't even manipulate nature to present the argument, then how long are we going to have to wait for nature to spit out some legitimate evidence? Cripes, we've been waiting for for like a 137 years to seal the deal, but the evolutionary model is just as impotent and anemic now as it was 137 years ago. Even if you say that evolution takes thousands and millions of years, you would be forgetting that by odds alone, at least 10 species should be experiencing a genuine transition. Its no mystery that adherents to evolution predominantely come from atheistic circles. Forgive me for generalizing and making the inferrence that the two are married. Take a concensus and see how many evolutionst are athiests and I'm pretty certain that a very low percentage is theistic in any way. "Things change, therefore evolution is a fact" is not an argument in support of evolution. You disagree that its a gross over-simplification? Providing red chlorophyll in the stead of the typical, green chloroplasts is providing some basis. This is the kind of specifics I would expect in order to presenting a case for evolution. Changes within the genome do happen, and I suspect, will always happen until the end. But first of all, evolutionary theory tactily asserts that an incline progression exists, while I think its the opposite. In other words, a loss of information is far more prevelant the cause of such gradations, because most mustations are either neutral or injurious. I think you could agree that most point mutations act adversely to most wild phenotypes. And when this intermingling occurs, another branch will occur in that particular specie to create yet another subspecie. It happens all the time. And what we have is just another kind of dog, or cat, or horse, or whatever. But always, always, always, its still perfectly canine, feline, and equine. Do you disagree? Are there any instances where an entirely new genus has spawned from another? There is a gulf affixed between the classes that are seemingly inpenetrable. We have tried very hard to create functional chimeras, by splicing DNA segments together. But there is a 'wall' that any organism will hit. Nobody knows how many potential sequences exist, and there is probably an inconconveibly great number of variables. Nonetheless, the only place we find these transitions are in sci-fi novels. Would it be cool if did? Yeah! But, we've never witnessed (which is a critical step in assigning something as empirical science) these necessary gradations to lead to a transspecific evolution. Humans are related to humans, chimps are related to chimps, dogs are related to dogs, snails are related to snails. There is zero evidence to support that man an amoeba share a common ancestor. Yes. Most major organs in the body couldn't possibly have derrived, little by little. In other words, a partial eye serves no function without all of its contrivances in place from the inception. Something Archaeopteryx's feathers and wings would have served no concievable relevance to its survival for it to inexplicably create wings. How would a partial wing, such as a nub, increase its survivability in the wild as it was changing from forelimb to wing? Wouldn't all signs point to the fact that it would inhibit its survival, not enhace its chances? Because it often acts detrimentally. It is hypothetically a possible determinant of such an evolution, but often times, gaining one function causes the loss of another. Here is one example of such. shortened linkIts not that I can't concieve of it, its that I've never seen it!!! And since there is an awful lot of procreation going on in the last 137 years, the stark fact that we've never seen any of these theoretical things you speak of, closes the realm of possibility. Just because (YOU) want to believe that because there homilogical similarites doesn't mean that it spawned from a common ancestor. That's more than a strawman; that's the king of the scarecrows.Dude, how long is this post? No, that's an over-simplification. I don't expect that. I don't even expect tenth percentile. If avian are the progeny of saurian lineage, I expect to see another transition along these lines. I'm not asking for a Hopeful Monster, I'm just asking for an obvious transition that we can clearly identify. I wouldn't call a bird with an orange blaze on its beak, where the ancestral populace has a yellowish beak a revolutionary breakthrough. There are exceptions to Mendellian law, however, those exceptions are almost always injurious. Aside from which, natural selection should remove most mutations, simply by the virtue that that so many act adversely. As I stated elsewhere, how would Archeaopteryx stave off annhilation? How is it that this creature was able to survive natural selection with stump-like appendages as its ancestors were changing from reptile to bird? Think about it. The contrivances of the wing must have been totally useless in the earliest stages of development, which should make us wonder what prompted these supposed changes to occur at all. How would this be advantageous as opposed to inhibiting its survival? What would prompt it to develop feathers? What prompted it to develop an elongated beak? Tell me: What advantage did this animal have while it was going through these changes? Answer: It wouldn’t. Natural selection would have gobbled up this critter faster than a fat kid at a buffet. And we could expect the same for all of the rest. I wonder that all the time. I can never get a clear answer. And when they commit to an answer they like, that fits preconcieved notions about the geologic column, they change the empirical dating methods to fit the newer model. Yes, I realize that it is a human construct, which is why I don't place too much stock in it. I appreciate the classifications, but the arrival of the conclusion that they are related because of similarities means little to me. A Toyota Tundra looks more related to a Ford F-150 because they are both pick-ups But in reality, the Tundra is more related to the Tercell and the F-150 more related to the Focus. (Before you ask, no, cars and trucks don't procreate). I'm just using it as a referrence on how 'looks' don't constitute lineage. For instance, my parents were looking at a magazine when they stumbled on a model for a Guess add. This kid looked exactly like me. It was really freaky. He could've easily passed for my twin. And in jest, I showed a couple and they asked me when I was doing headshots. The point is, he looked like me but was not anywhere in my immmediate lineage. It was purely coincidental. I feel the same about human and simian lineage. How many quotes from the inventors of the theory do I need to pull up to obliterate the typical, textbook case of Darwinian gradualism? Punk eek was 'invented' to cover the lack of transitional forms. Its really that simple. Instead of a stepwise evolution, PE teaches us that we should expect long periods of stasis coupled with rapid bursts of change, thus invalidating the need for a step-by-step evolutionary model. That's because so much of it has to do with the anatomical similarities. Whenever one organism has a similar structure with another, we should expect to see genetic similarites. But again, for that to be used as some sort of basis of lineage is only based on suppositions. We would expect to see a Jaguar and a Lion to have a similar sequence. Aside from which, the percentage we've all come to know is misleading.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...4_020924_dnachimp.html Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. | Answers in Genesis The following is from B16: The History of Life: Source Book -- AdminIf punctuated equilibrium has provoked a shift in paradigms for macroevolutionary theory (see ref. 35 for a defence of this view), the main insight for revision holds that all substantial evolutionary change must be reconceived as higher-level sorting based on differential success of certain kinds of stable species, rather than as progressive transformation within lineages (see Eldredge 36 on taxic versus transformational views of evolution; Simpson 37, however, in the canonical paleontological statement of the generation before punctuated equilibrium, had attributed 90% of macroevolution to the transformational mode, and only 10%. to speciation). Figure 1, our original diagram of punctuated equilibrium, shows how a trend may be produced by differential success of certain species without directional change in any species following its origin.

​

Darwin's theory of natural selection locates the causality of evolutionary change at one domain on one level: natural selection operating by struggle among individual organisms for reproductive success. Given Darwin's crucial reliance upon lyellian uniformity for extrapolating this mode of change to encompass all magnitudes through all times, the interposition of a level for sorting among stable species breaks this causal reduction and truly, in Stanley's felicitous term 38, "decouples" macro- from microevolution. Decoupling is not a claim for the falseness or irrelevancy of microevolutionary mechanisms, especially natural selection, but a recognition that Darwinian extrapolation cannot fully explain large-scale change in the history of life.Allow me to paraphrase through all of the fluff. Whenever there is any evidence that would lend credence to a macroevolutionary process, we shall recognize it. However, whenever evidence is scant, its because organisms that have optimal suitability to the enviornment and experience long periods of stasis.What is it all based upon? Are you referring to the Tiktaalik Roseae? I only ask because evolutionists thought the Coelacanth were fish that experimented with walking because its anatomical makeup of its fins. As it turns out, the Coelacanth do nothing remotely akin to any type of 'walking.' I'm not sure what this has to do with evolution. Can you elaborate? There is no direct evidence of God and I don't pretend, unlike my counterparts concerning their theory, that such direct evidence does exist. But perhaps I will provide all the positive evidence of a Creator in one of the ID rooms. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : spellingEdited by Admin, : No reason given.Edited by AdminJar, : shortened long link to correct pagewidth

Typo. The problem is, it was argued for years this is how evolution works. Even after creationtionists and panspermists repeatedly shown the errors, it was still in the minds of evolutionists as an unassailable fact. Now that its so anemic, evolutionists blithely make the transition over to PE and sort of casually make remarks such as you made. A flippant attitude about it won't erase the bulk of the predominent evolutionary thought.Aside from which, I still recieve conflicting views on ToE to this day, where many still believe in gradualism. So, if I'm not talking to you specifically about that, let it roll off your back.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, PE claims, (because no such transitions exist), asserts that most species experience long periods of stasis, and then inexplicably make a taxonomical jump.

---

PE gives reasons for why we shouldn't expect to find very many transitions in the fossil record, again, presumably to cover up the fact that they simply don't exist. Instead, they claim that long periods of stasis will occur in organisms and peripheral populations that have optimal suitability to their enviornment, and so, there is no reason for nature to weed out that which is already very strong. A typical creature they posit has gone through such a stasis, would be a shark. (Where a Hammerhead fits into the equation is anyone's guess). They also say that when it does make its transition, its usually punctuated by short (geologically/biologically, relative to a vast stretch of time) bursts of change. That rapidity creates less of a chance for us to find solid evidence of such gradations.This is a brief synopsis, but I think it conveys that I understand what lies at the root of the theory. I was asserting that steps are being skipped. That's not me claiming that fox's turn into bears in one felled swoop. Perhaps I could have worded it more clearly. What I was arriving at was that PE provides a basis for understanding why evidence might not exist. In fact, Gould coins the phrase, "stasis is data" as if a lack of evidence is providing an evidence of lack.The paper below elucidates my point and makes some objections, claiming their theory to be both banal and unclear as to the purpose of the paper."The original Eldridge & Gould paper (1972) presents three principal ideas. The first - that even ostensibly 'objective' observations are influenced by the observers' preconceptions, not least in deciding what to observe - is so obvious, and delivered with such an offensive sanctimony, that it deserves no further attention and will certainly receive none from me.

​

The remaining theses are (1) that lengthy periods of evolutionary stasis within lineages are genuine and important phenomena, and (2) that speciation events usually appear in the fossil record as more or less instantaneous events. The combination of these two observations leads to a step-wise evolutionary pattern, rather than steady, insensible 'gradualism.'Punctuated Equilibrium Agreed. I think that's why the paper, above, describes it as 'banal', almost like its a redundency or a rebirth of a preexisting theory. I appreciate your train model and understand what you're arriving at, but odds are odds - and the odds that in the million + fossils on file that none of them clearly show any change from one species creating a new genus through morphology, acts as a detriment. I understand that the binomial nomenclature is just a form of classification, and that it is ultimately a human construct. Its obvious that no two organisms are truly identical and that they change on some level. We know that organisms change. If they didn't, you and I would be identical. What I find objectionable is to jump to the conclusion that because changes occur within species, that we must somehow all be related. This is an inferrence and it is an interesting one. However, I feel that there is no legitimate evidence supporting macroevolution. There are scores of secularists in the fields of science who feel the same way, not based on personal predjudices, but on the merits of unbiased science. Somebody did. I dare not hit the back button to see if my post that you responding to was initially me responding to you or somebody else. I don't know how many times I've hit the back button to referrence something when I'm nearing the completion of a post. Its..... ummmm..... oh, what's the word? Infuriating!!! Here's the crux of the situation:In northeastern Oregon, the three-toed (Neohipparion) and the one-toed horse (Pliohippus) are found in the same strata
2. which means that they lived at the same time in the same place. No transitional forms have been found. One does not seem to be the ancestor of the other as Figure 18.4 proposes.
3. In South America the one and the recessed three-toed horses (Equus and Merychippus) were found together in the Miocene strata (13-25 million years) and the full three-toed horse (Mesohippus) above
the other two in the Pliocene strata (2-13 million years ).
3. This completely contradicts Figure18.4.
5. Size cannot be used as an indicator of evolution because today’s horses range in size from 16 to 80 inches tall.
5. As late as 1892 three toed horses were reported to be living with the one toed horse in the U.S.
6. A volcano eruption in Nebraska buried a one-toedand a three-toed horse together proving that they lived together at the same time.
7. David Raup, Curator of the Museum of Natural History, where approximately 20% of the world’s fossils are housed, comments ,
“......some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil
record, such as the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” Note that this comment was made back in 1979."http://www.textaddons.com/...logy_Mader_McGraw_Hill_2001.pdf Mayr was commenting on OC Marsh's depictions of the evoultion of horses series that were misleading. He stated that Simpson corrected the changes, however, the refutable information still made it in the textbooks. My reason for mentioning is that many horse evolution series depictions still exist in some of the textbooks and even in museum displays. In other words, they present it as factual, when it isn't. I couldn't referrences on the changing of horse ribs. Where can I find a source on this? Evolutionists come from all nations. Religions come from all nations. Evolutionists come in all races. The religious come in all races. Many opponents of evolution are typically creationists, however, this is far from exclusivity. As far as theistic evolutionists are concerned, I feel that many of them are simply misinformed and are the types that hold fast to religious sentiments for emotional reasons, yet have never challenged (or cared enough about) the evolutionary model to satisfy any inquiries on the intellectual level. After all, where does a Creator fit into the equation in evolution?Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of GodI believe the evolutionary model provides its adherents a form of escapism - not all of them, but many. This is just how I feel about it. And as dogmatically as some adhere to it despite some good arguments against its most basic theory, it seems that abandoning it would betray philosphical suppositions. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

Then evolution falls into that same exact category. Look, ToE barely even has circumstancial evidence at its disposal, let alone a cogent argument in support of itself. If there is no evidence, then no evidence has been proposed. Does that mean that no evidence will ever surface? No, not necessarily. However, if there is so much lacking withing the theory, and yet some of you hold fast to it, then is it unreasonable for me to suppose that it must serve some philosophical facet of your life? Believe me when I say that I don't expect the fossil record to be perfect. I know that most organisms do not survive decay. I'd just like to see something that really made me question it. Neither can we say that it did by that premise. And that's what we've done, and the conclusion tells me that it supports animals belonging to its own 'kind.' Uh, Matrix and I couldn't argue against evolution and claim that it IS complete. Our objection is based on the lack of evidence. As far as the whale sequence is concerned, I have so many objections that I'm not sure where to begin. Perhaps we can start a thread on Ambulocetus and Pakicetus. No openly opposes PE in here. What I see is that they conveniently go back and forth between PE and gradualism. I think I've provided more than enough quotes straight from the horses mouth to clear up any misconceptions. Of course I know what a strawman is and logical fallacies. The last forum I was on used the terminologies quite frequently. It was irritating, not because any of it was true, but because they used it to detract from the actual argument. In the last forum that was a typical tactic. If they had no argument left, they'd simply claim arguments from incredulity, strawmen, logical fallacies, and of course my favorite, ad hominem. Nothing says you don't have an argument more than reverting back to schoolyard name-calling.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you are saying that creationists did not believe in any adaptations within any given specie in the distant past. Am I interpreting that correctly? There never was any contention that certain organims adapt for a variety of reasons, known empirically since Mendel's experiments yielded reproducable and predictable results. The earliest evidence I have of creationists exhibiting this understanding comes from a 1928 paper, written by the equivalent of a creationist back then."Species are immutable. One does not become another or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

​

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind'." Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?

​

Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."

​

Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life. Darwin answers the objection to the sterility of hybrids by saying, "We do not know." "But why," he says, "in the case of distinct species, the sexual elements should so generally have become more or less modified, leading to their mutual infertility, we do not know." But God knows." -William Williamshttp://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html If that's the case, then why have so many eminent evolutionists stated very clearly that a lack of evidence is very prevelant, and evidence of a genuine macroevolutionary process is scant?"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." - (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)"The changes within a population have been termed microevolution, and they can indeed be accepted as a consequence of shifting gene frequencies. Changes above the species level-involving the origin of new species and the establishment of higher taxonomic patterns- are known as macroevolution. The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." -(Lewin, Roger [biochemist, former editor of New Scientist and science writer], "Evolutionary- Theory Under Fire: An historic conference in Chicago challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis," Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, pp.883-887, p.883)."Why don't we see gradual transition in the sequences of fossils? According to Darwin, and the current neo-Darwinists, the fossil record has gaps in it because of the haphazard way in which fossilization occurs-it is bound to be an imperfect record of the history of life. But is it? Is the jerky and abrupt nature of the record really just due to 'gaps', or does it reflect the way evolution actually happened? There is a strong feeling among leading palaeontologists that the punctuated history shown by fossils reflects the way life has evolved-in leaps and bounds rather than in gradual transition. There is also a growing sense that there is much more to understanding 'macroevolution'-the large-scale picture one gets from the fossils-than the simple idea of natural selection can alone explain."- (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.23).iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

I disagree fundamentally because to me, mechanisms acting as the causation for how and why transitions occur is the small piece of the puzzle. Steady gradualism is indeed the old model of evolution. Gradualism is indeed central to Darwinian macroevolution. Therefore, after years of heated debate, the overall theory needed pruning, tailored by such names as, Simpson, Mayr, Gould, Eldridge, and a few other trailblazers. They supplanted Darwin's account, or rather, the theory supplanted itself and rendered it antiquated. But for anyone to say that phyletic gradualism is a 'small' part of the theory is supplying an answer that is wholly unfactual. Its only been recently used to describe the pace at which a transition occurs. No one really understood the pace to begin with back in those days before the advent of dating methods. Before, it was Lyelian uniformity to differentiate between the geologic/biologic timescale. But I propose that punctuated equilibrium at the root has more to do with the lack of evidence than it does the rate of transitioning. Yeah, imagine that... But we know quite well that trains travel at different speeds. What we don't know is the rate of evolution, not because its unclear, but because we've never seen any trains (macroevolution) at all. My question has little to do with at what varying speeds do trains travel at, and has much more to do with whether trains (macroevloution) existed at all. Yes, punctuated equilibrium helped rid us of the antiquated theory of uniformitarianism, however, my issue with PE has to do with its flagrant effort to insist that we shouldn't expect to see very many transitions within the fossil record. I'm not arguing about the rate. The rate is inconsequential to me because I'm arguing the point that it never began to begin with. Non-directed panspermia concludes one thing that evolution overlooks, or at least makes a plea that many evolutionists are indifferent to; that "life comes from life." If no one can demonstrate that life cannot come from non-life, then a strictly naturalistic explanation of evolution is completely undermined. Its only been after test after test conveys repeatable and indisputable evidence that abiogenesis is impossible, that it now is cleverly deemed as inconsequential to ToE. Its important to many creationists because we believe that souls are on the line. I mean, virtually every theory that stole the show at the Scopes Trial was based off these antiquated theories. It was thought to be an unassailable truth then. And now that its been modified, because legitimate science is catching it in its own game, its been deemed as truth now. The scarcity of its own ability to present an irrefutable exegesis, even after addendum and amendment, is ringing its own death-knell. Progress is an inevitable part of science. If we plateaued in the fields of science and became trapped in a stasis of our own, I'd be concerned. But what if scientific progression actually determined that the ToE was falsifiable? What if its been doing that slowly, but surely, all along? Would you still cling to it? Some would dogmatically go down with the ship to til last breath. I was on the evolutionary boat ride, but I recognized holes in the hull and jumped ship. Most of Newtonian law has stood the test of time. Shockingly, however, cracks are appearing in Einsteins theory of Relativity. I mean, we should all be open to wherever truth may lead. Truth, is truth and the truth shall set us free. Even if I didn't like the truth, truth is better than falsehood. As I've shared, my main objection to phyletic gradualism, is the 'gradualism,' not so much the pace at which they suppose it has occured. As well, with PE, my concern with PE isn't that they use burst of rapidity in the theorum, but rather, that its being used as a n excuse not to present evidence, or at least, give us reasons why shouldn't expect to see any.

I'm not sure how many quotes I need to pull up, but the simple epithet of "lots" fits nowhere in it. The 'need' for it arose because of its lack.This theory, formulated by Niles Eldredge and me in 1972, proposes that the two most general observations made by paleontologists form a genuine and primary pattern of evolution, and do not arise as artifacts of an imperfect fossil record. The first observation notes that most new species originate in a geological "moment." The second holds that species generally do not change in any substantial or directional way during their geological lifetimes”usually a long period averaging five to ten million years for fossil invertebrate species. Punctuated equilibrium does not challenge accepted genetic ideas about the rates at which species emerge (for the geological "moment" of a single rock layer may represent many thousand years of accumulation). But the theory does contravene conventional Darwinian expectations for gradual change over geological periods, and does suggest a substantial revision of standard views about the causes of long-term evolutionary trends. For such trends must now be explained by the higher rates at which some species branch off from others, and the greater durations of some stable species as distinguished from others, and not as the slow and continuous transformation of single populations. -Stephen J. Gould Yes, I understand that they say this. This is a very convenient excuse to give us whenever there is no change on record. No, it attempts to reconcile macroevolution by intermingling microevolution, and saying, "See, change does occur." Of course change occurs. If it didn't, we'd all be carbon copies of one another. That's not even an argument to present. Its the miraculous conclusion that because recessive or dominant traits reveal themselves, that this must somehow explain that every living thing is inherently related without any kind of corroboration by providing clear, links in the chain, that I object to. And now PE provides a 'reason' on how we should not expect to find them, or if we do, that they are few and far between. That way, it can't be falsified on any form of empiricism. Its not the imperfection of the fossil process, its the imperfection of the fossil record that fails to logically tie one into the other. I guess its about time to start a thread on the '29 evidences of macroevolution,' presented by TalkOrigins. I will certainly open one in order to go over those 'many' transitions spoken about in it. I will start this on Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm leaving for California today and won't be back until Tuesday. Or perhaps you or someone else can start the thread and I'll pick up where you guys left off when I return. Let me know what you think.

Amen. A political party? I'm not sure what you mean by that? Can you elaborate? This thread has nothing to do with the theological aspects of the evo/creation debate, so I won't delve too deeply into that aspect. But let me say this much. There is no direct evidence of God. There is no empirical/tangible evidence of such a being. A bloody spear, pieces of the Ark, or the Arc of the Covenant will only prove the Bibles historical accuracy, but uncovering such findings only helps to give more credence to the Bible, not prove the existence of God. The Bible repeatedly posits that there is no direct evidence of God, nor should we expect to see any. What it does say is that we must first walk by faith, and when that faith in place, God begins to reveal Himslef on a very personal level."Faith in antagonism to common sense is fanaticism, and comon sense in antagonism to faith is rationalism. The life of faith brings the two into right relation. Common sense is not faith, and faith is not common sense; they stand in the relation of the natural and the spiritual; of impulse and inspiration. Nothing Jesus Christ ever said was common sense, it is revelation sense, and it reaches the shores where common sense fails. Faith must be tried before the reality of faith is actual. We know that all things work together for good, so that no matter what happens, the alchemy of God's providence transfigures the ideal faith into actual reality. Faith always works on the personal line, the whole purpose of God being to see that the ideal faith is made real in His children." -Oswald ChambersAnyway, I'm afraid that's about as much theology as I will be permited to express in this thread. Anything beyond that and we'll have to adjourn until we can speak heavily about on a religious thread. I believe that ToE is based on the exact same faith that religion is based upon. I also happen to believe that it provides a satisfying basis to reject the notion and need of a Creator in the minds of countless evolutionists. And it has thus far served to be a very potent aphrodisiac for many of them, perhaps even an opiate for that 30% figure you provided.

Thanks. My trip was horrible. A cautionary piece of advice would be, don't use Amtrak to go across state lines. Its just not worth it. I thought it would be faster than driving (which it so wasn't) and that it would save me a couple hundred bucks on airfare. But after that experience, I think I'll just opt to fly. Yeah I think we jousted for a couple of posts on that thread. No, I don't blame you for being hesitant to continue in that vein on this thread. Perhaps we'll pick it up later.I saw that you responded on the TalkOrigins request, and I'd like to start a thread on it. That would be my first time starting a thread on EvC. All I have to do is hit 'new topic,' in the 'suggestions' folder and wait for submission or rejection? I only ask because earlier today i starting to write it but decided to stop, thinking about writing all that information only to have it not go through for some reason. So, I thought I'd ask you about the particulars on how to request a new thread.