Helo everybody, I am new here and I would like to add some points here.
Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.
I think the problem with your conclusion (no evolution in fossil record) is that you missinterpreted quotes. I will show you how.
Gould, Eldredge and others talk about species to species transitions. About exact speciation and fossil record which shows these events. Speciation on species level is called especially by creationist as microevolution. The macroevolution; however, is what creationist deny. Macroevolution is simply microevolution + time. In other words it is evolution among higher taxa - genera (this is still acceptable among creationist), family, orders, etc.
What is generally missing in fossil record is evidence for microevolution - speciation events. The evidence for macroevolution is on the other hand abundant in fossil record.
We don't need evidence for microevolution / speciation (it would be nice - and it is nice in many cases, but we don't need it to prove microevolution is real). Speciation on species level has been proven more than 100 years ago. There is a lot of evidence from nature and also from lab that speciation works. That is why microevolution is acceptable (they have no choice) among creationist.
You qouted Mr. Gould. Let me qoute him too:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
In other words fossil record shows macroevolution but microevolution is generally lacking. Generally lacking doesn't mean is missing completely! And donesn't mean there is NO (micro)evolution but ONLY statis.
It shows statis of species but the evolution of genera, families, orders etc.
That is why your conclusion - fossils show no evolution - is wrong.
In fact I wouldn't throw away gradualism at all. Because as can be seen in fossil record (in my opinion). More complete fossil record more gradualism we see. Less complete fossil record we se (aparent ??) statis.
™ Version 4.2
