evidence?

Don't take the word of an evolutionist too seriously
they sometimes let their guard down.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Perhaps you would like to explain your reasoning.Especially you can explain why this quote is relevant to the past course of this thread (where it is clear that lawdog was simply throwign false accusations to cover up his inability to support his assertions).Also you can explain why Gould's support of his own idea (punctuated equilibria) over phyletic gradualism (a view apparently once held by paleontologists rather than evolutionary theorists) is evidence that he is "letting his guard down".

I'm sorry, could you please brush me up on Goulds concept of punctuated equilibria.
Is that to account for the problem of complex biological systems or the fossil discoveries of the Cambrian period.

gotta love it! Gemster posts a taken out of context quote of Gould on PE and then asks you to "brush him up" on PE...all the while accusing evolutionists of "letting their guard down"

Punctuated Equilibria is primarily the idea that evolutionary change (as measured by morphology) is predominantly found during short term speciation events (using species concepts appropriate to paleontology) which typically occur in small geographically isolated sub-populations (an idea from mainstream evolutionary theory.The timescales involved are short in paleontological terms - maybe 10,000 years compared to the lifetime of a species.Phyletic gradualism on the other hand holds that evolutionary changes accumulate at a more or less steady rate.The general viewpoint is that puncutation is important although there are some examples of more gradual changes.Presumably you have not read the essay you were quoting. Perhaps you would like to explain where you found it and how you came to the interpretation you did.

Gemster, gemster, gemster. Perhaps you should see what Gould himself has to say about creationists and that quote:"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record contains no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals...is well documented."Gould said this back in May of 1981 (your quote was from 1977). Creationists take *forever* (if ever) to stop pretending a scientist believes something that he doesn't.*Every* compitent paleontologist accepts that most transitions in the record occur at about the genus level. To a paleontologist, that is a sad, but expected part of the job - we're dealing with only the fossils that were lucky enough to be preserved, which in many cases were quite brittle. And yet, there have been hundreds of thousands of genuses throughout history. A genus transition is typically at the level of change between a new world and old world camel. Some species - especially those desposited in good soils and those with sturdy bones - preserved well, and we have species (and occasionally even subspecies) transitions. Some, such as bats, are so brittle that we only have a family transition.Thankfully, new fossils are being found all the time. And, as evolution predicts, they almost always fit nicely into the gaps, the depth that they're found corresponds with what gap they fit into, they're almost always in the same layer as other time appropriate fossils, they almost always have radioisotope dating (sometimes multiple methods) back up the confirmation - and virtually every time, almost everything comes out exactly as predicted. In the rare cases where things are otherwise, it's usually quite apparent at the outset that it will be a difficult case, such as a creature being buried in a rockslide, in a solidified pyroclastic flow, etc. There has been not a single case that hasn't fallen accurately into the framework.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

"There has been not a single case that hasn't fallen accurately into the framework."
------Of course not, because the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils. How could it be wrong? This is also why the banker never loses in Monopoly.Evolutionary theory is all about assumptions and presuppositions.

Oh, and here is another recent example of evolutionary predictions gone wild (or awry). Note the happy face painted to cover up the crying inside.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/2035132100v1

Hi lawdog,Have you come back to explain why stratigraphy matches phylogeny? Or are you still looking the other way with your fingers in your ears?Or perhaps you have returned to wow us all with the scientific references to Precambrian fish & crustacea? Or are you still "retrieving" them?And your PNAS article is based on "assumptions and presuppositions", I wouldn't take that too seriously. Not that a complex foraminaferan ecology AFTER the proterozoic is a falsification, of course. All you have shown is your ability to misquote, or misunderstand what you read.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003]

Looks like another round of PRATT's. You think that evo's haven't heard this one before?Igneous rock above and below the fossil determines its age. If a fossil is only found in one strata and that strata has been dated using available igneous rock, then that fossil is an index fossil. The presence of that fossil can date the strata in the absence of ingeous rock in one place because it has been dated by ingeous rock in another place.On the web: http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CC/CC310.htmlInteresting quote from above website: "The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution."If you are still in doubt, the Dates and Dating forum should have more for you.

Above arguement links to an article on fossil foraminifera found in Cambrian rock.So, what are the predictions that were so far off. From this site:"The oldest fossil foraminifera, from the Cambrian, are simple agglutinated tubes. Calcareous microgranular and porcellaneous tests evolved in the Carboniferous, and calcareous hyaline tests in the Permian. Over time, each of these groups has evolved many different forms, including large complex tests associated with reefs." And from the same site:"The Cambrian Period marks an important point in the history of life on earth; it is the time when most of the major groups of animals first appear in the fossil record. This event is sometimes called the "Cambrian Explosion", because of the relatively short time over which this diversity of forms appears."So you can see these fossils were expected in the Cambrian layers and as expected evolved into the Permian. So what's the problem lawdog, I fail to see it.

quote:

---

Of course not, because the fossils date the rocks and the rocks date the fossils. How could it be wrong? This is also why the banker never loses in Monopoly

---

1) You apparently don't know about a) isochron dating, and b) that most samples, whenever possible, are dated using multiple methods (which miraculously confirm each other!). If you're trying to talk about calibration factors, forget it - that only applies to carbon dating.2) The banker loses all the time in Monopoly - haven't you ever played it?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-23-2003]

since you enjoyed my last quote so much heres another one that you may enjoy...........Klaus Dose:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]

Um, Gemster? What does the question of the origin of life have to do with the question of the diversity of life?Evolution doesn't care how life came into being. Evolution is not abiogenesis and is not dependent upon abiogenesis.Are you saying that god is incapable of creating life that evolves?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

fair enough