Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 15, 2022 16:36:47 GMT
That's why you are too stupid to be here, asswipe. You're too f*cking stupid to understand that the article had facts that had nothing to do Intelligent Design, but were compelling refutations of the sacred cows of the evolution cult.
But you're too chickensh*t to address the substance of the article instead preferrring to fallaciously attack the very truthful, very accurate messenger.
And you're too chickensh*t to acknowledge your defeat after I posted the fact that well known paleontologists also have abandoned Darwin and his stupid theory.
Idiot, the only people who "abandoned" Darwin's theory are ID kooks who never adopted it to begin with, just as flat earthers were never ones to believe in a spherical Earth. We're not talking scientists here, we're talking crapots and weirdos who happen to indulge the fantasies of ignorant morons like you. It really is like a religion to you, isn't it? I'm a heretic for actually knowing and showing you how your god Darwin is a failure and his theory is a fairy tale, but I'm not allowed to question your religion.
Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Do you ever get tired of regurgitating the lies that you are spoon fed by your ideological masters?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2022 16:41:39 GMT
Idiot, the only people who "abandoned" Darwin's theory are ID kooks who never adopted it to begin with, just as flat earthers were never ones to believe in a spherical Earth. We're not talking scientists here, we're talking crapots and weirdos who happen to indulge the fantasies of ignorant morons like you. It really is like a religion to you, isn't it? I'm a heretic for actually knowing and showing you how your god Darwin is a failure and his theory is a fairy tale, but I'm not allowed to question your religion.
Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Do you ever get tired of regurgitating the lies that you are spoon fed by your ideological masters?
This is irony for you. You're the moron who follows blindly a bunch of cooks who can't find their asses with both hands because they happen to tell you what you want to hear, idiot, and for that you'll ignore the tons of evidence that contradicts this bullshit of yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 15, 2022 17:36:17 GMT
Actually, evolution does explain where the species originated—from other species. It does not explain the origin of life itself. That doesn't make the theory wrong. It merely exposes the theory's limits. No, the theory of evolution has failed to explain where each species came from, and certainly has failed to provide any evidence that one species morphed into another. The very ideas that Darwin put forth have failed utterly, resulting in other "guesses" like P.E.
There's a huge flaw in your argument. Punctuated equilibrium is not "it's own theory over against evolution." It is part of (or a version of) the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what has convinced you that evolution has "failed to explain where each species came from." Because...evolution (fairly successfully) explains where each species came from. That part of Darwin's guesses were wrong doesn't make the whole theory wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a very reasonable idea. I think there might be one question you've left hanging though. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that changes are not constant and gradual. They occur when there is "pressure" to adapt. So, compared to consistent gradual changes over time, they actually happen relatively "suddenly." How long do you think "suddenly" is? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 15, 2022 17:46:07 GMT
No, the theory of evolution has failed to explain where each species came from, and certainly has failed to provide any evidence that one species morphed into another. The very ideas that Darwin put forth have failed utterly, resulting in other "guesses" like P.E. There's a huge flaw in your argument. Punctuated Equilibrium is not "it's own theory over against evolution." It is part of (or a version of) the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what has convinced you that evolution has "failed to explain where each species came from." Because...evolution (fairly successfully) explains where each species came from. Actually, it hasn't, but you're welcome to attempt to prove me wrong. Punctuated Equilibrium is the result of fossil records and data that refute the Darwin theories, so the evolutionists decided that it must have been isolated catastrophic events that pushed major evolutionary changes. But none of it shows any species changing to another species. Macro evolution is not supported by the evidence. Assuming the species don't morph into each other, how could they just appear in the record, fully formed? There are transitional forms in the fossil record showing micro-evolution, but a prehistoric horse still looked very similar to our current horse. But where did that prehistoric horse come from?
That part of Darwin's guesses were wrong doesn't make the whole theory wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a very reasonable idea. I think there might be one question you've left hanging though. Punctuated equilibrium suggests that changes are not constant and gradual. They occur when there is "pressure" to adapt. So, compared to consistent gradual changes over time, they actually happen relatively "suddenly." How long do you think "suddenly" is? The FOUNDATION of Darwin's theory was proven to be wrong. Punctuated Equilibrium was the next fad that we get to prove wrong just as we did with Darwin's drivel. In a new paper from researchers at the University of Oslo, the authors claim to have found several methodological problems in the most famous and well-trusted example supporting the theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Find your dream job in the space industry. Check our Space Job Board »
“We find no evidence for punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the most recognized dataset that Gould used to support his theory”, says Kjetil Lysne Voje at UiO’s Center for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES) at the Department of Biosciences.
Fossils of the bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos—a group of aquatic invertebrates thoroughly investigated by the excellent paleobiologist Alan Cheetham—have been the prime example of punctuated evolution.
Gould called Metrarabdotos “the most brilliantly persuasive, and most meticulously documented, example ever presented for predominant (in this case, exclusive) punctuated equilibrium in a full lineage” (Gould 2002, page 827).
“We detected some critical methodological issues in the original work on Metrarabdotos. When we take the methodological issues into account, we do not find any evidence of punctuated evolution in our reanalysis of the Metrarabdotos data”, says Kjetil Lysne Voje.
Bryozoans are so small that scientists have to use an electron microscope to study them in detail, but they form colonies that can be quite large (up to 1 meter). Most bryozoans live in the sea, but there are also many species in fresh water. The bryozoan genus Metrarabdotos has been used as a textbook example in evolutionary biology and paleontology, showing how evolution speeds up when new species form compared to a much slower evolution of already established species.
“But our new results show nothing else than a gradual evolution of the bryozoan species both before, during and after the formation of new species”, emphasizes Voje.sciencebulletin.org/the-most-popular-textbook-example-of-punctuated-evolution-debunked/ |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 15, 2022 17:50:59 GMT
It really is like a religion to you, isn't it? I'm a heretic for actually knowing and showing you how your god Darwin is a failure and his theory is a fairy tale, but I'm not allowed to question your religion.
Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Do you ever get tired of regurgitating the lies that you are spoon fed by your ideological masters?
This is irony for you. You're the moron who follows blindly a bunch of cooks who can't find their asses with both hands because they happen to tell you what you want to hear, idiot, and for that you'll ignore the tons of evidence that contradicts this bullshit of yours. "Cooks"? You really are too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation.
The "tons of evidence" have made Darwin look like an ignorant fool. Let's see you show us some of that evidence that your worship, stinking toady.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 15, 2022 17:59:52 GMT
There's a huge flaw in your argument. Punctuated Equilibrium is not "it's own theory over against evolution." It is part of (or a version of) the theory of evolution. I'm not sure what has convinced you that evolution has "failed to explain where each species came from." Because...evolution (fairly successfully) explains where each species came from. Actually, it hasn't, but you're welcome to attempt to prove me wrong. Punctuated Equilibrium is the result of fossil records and data that refute the Darwin theories, so the evolutionists decided that it must have been isolated catastrophic events that pushed major evolutionary changes.
But none of it shows any species changing to another species. Macro evolution is not supported by the evidence. Assuming the species don't morph into each other, how could they just appear in the record, fully formed? There are transitional forms in the fossil record showing micro-evolution, but a prehistoric horse still looked very similar to our current horse. But where did that prehistoric horse come from?
Describe what it would "look like" to see evidence of one species "changing into another." |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 15, 2022 18:34:41 GMT
Actually, it hasn't, but you're welcome to attempt to prove me wrong. Punctuated Equilibrium is the result of fossil records and data that refute the Darwin theories, so the evolutionists decided that it must have been isolated catastrophic events that pushed major evolutionary changes.
But none of it shows any species changing to another species. Macro evolution is not supported by the evidence. Assuming the species don't morph into each other, how could they just appear in the record, fully formed? There are transitional forms in the fossil record showing micro-evolution, but a prehistoric horse still looked very similar to our current horse. But where did that prehistoric horse come from?
Describe what it would "look like" to see evidence of one species "changing into another." Transitional forms have not been found that show characteristics of the existing and a new species.
"Intermediate varieties" found are intra-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 15, 2022 18:42:16 GMT
Describe what it would "look like" to see evidence of one species "changing into another." Transitional forms have not been found that show characteristics of the existing and a new species.
"Intermediate varieties" found are intra-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
I think you're missing the point of the question. What's the difference between "a species" and "a transitional species"? What's the difference between an "established species" and an "in-between species"? According to the theory of evolution, there is no difference. All species are (potentially) "transitionary species." But none fit your criteria of what a transitional species should be. What should it "look like"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2022 19:44:58 GMT
This is irony for you. You're the moron who follows blindly a bunch of cooks who can't find their asses with both hands because they happen to tell you what you want to hear, idiot, and for that you'll ignore the tons of evidence that contradicts this bullshit of yours. "Cooks"? You really are too f*cking stupid to be in this conversation. Ok, so I misspelled "Kooks", maybe it was my unconscious telling me that I was hungry, there's no need to make a federal case out of it, dumb fuck. As I said in that thread: ID is bunk.Darwin is the least of your problems, cretin. But you are far too stupid to know it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2022 19:55:18 GMT
Transitional forms have not been found that show characteristics of the existing and a new species.
"Intermediate varieties" found are intra-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
I think you're missing the point of the question. What's the difference between "a species" and "a transitional species"? What's the difference between an "established species" and an "in-between species"? According to the theory of evolution, there is no difference. All species are (potentially) "transitionary species." But none fit your criteria of what a transitional species should be. What should it "look like"? True, a " transitory species" would basically be a work in progress but that would imply that there is an end to evolution and there isn't. In a sense we're all works in progress, each in our own way. If as the dog we were captured and bred by some superior alien being, we could be transformed physically as radically as the dog, to the point where human being would be as disparate as dogs. Our exterior appearance is not fixed. It can be changed anytime (after a few generations) if the conditions of our survival change. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 22, 2022 2:54:35 GMT
Transitional forms have not been found that show characteristics of the existing and a new species.
"Intermediate varieties" found are intra-species and show no change to a new species at all. Feel free to show me fossils that support an existing animal species type transforming into another type. The evolutionists have been desperate to find any examples of macro-evolution and have failed to do so. Darwin has been largely discredited and abandoned because of his errors in this regard.
"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and
this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.
I think you're missing the point of the question. What's the difference between "a species" and "a transitional species"? What's the difference between an "established species" and an "in-between species"? According to the theory of evolution, there is no difference. All species are (potentially) "transitionary species." But none fit your criteria of what a transitional species should be. What should it "look like"? Ah, I see your problem and you've got it backwards; there is no proof of that "potential" for one species to become another. Are we all evolving in a MICRO sense? Yes, thus you're correct that all species are "transitionary" is that small INTRA-SPECIES way.
But we've found no evidence that any species has jumped the rails, so to speak. The fossil record is evidence and we've found none to show a "transformation" from one species to something hybrid that would exist between the old species and the new species it's allegedly supposed to become.
All species have a sudden appearance in the fossil record, followed by micro changes afterward. How did that sudden appearance occur?
What should that mythical "macro-evolution" creature look like? If it was possible to transition, it would have characteristics of both the old and the new...and if the change was gradual like Darwin said, it would be obvious in the fossil record.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 22, 2022 3:00:10 GMT
I think you're missing the point of the question. What's the difference between "a species" and "a transitional species"? What's the difference between an "established species" and an "in-between species"? According to the theory of evolution, there is no difference. All species are (potentially) "transitionary species." But none fit your criteria of what a transitional species should be. What should it "look like"? True, a " transitory species" would basically be a work in progress but that would imply that there is an end to evolution and there isn't. In a sense we're all works in progress, each in our own way. If as the dog we were captured and bred by some superior alien being, we could be transformed physically as radically as the dog, to the point where human being would be as disparate as dogs. Our exterior appearance is not fixed. It can be changed anytime (after a few generations) if the conditions of our survival change. But not to a new species; the dogs in your example are still canines just like the wolves they came from. That's micro-evolution. And if that superior alien being intervened, that would be intelligent design using natural tools. Statistically and biologically, random mutations rarely work, and to mutate to a higher being, multiple mutations must occur that complement each other and fit together. The mutations required to become a new species would have to be a perfect storm against astronomical odds. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 22, 2022 3:10:22 GMT
I think you're missing the point of the question. What's the difference between "a species" and "a transitional species"? What's the difference between an "established species" and an "in-between species"? According to the theory of evolution, there is no difference. All species are (potentially) "transitionary species." But none fit your criteria of what a transitional species should be. What should it "look like"? Ah, I see your problem and you've got it backwards; there is no proof of that "potential" for one species to become another. Are we all evolving in a MICRO sense? Yes, thus you're correct that all species are "transitionary" is that small INTRA-SPECIES way.
But we've found no evidence that any species has jumped the rails, so to speak. The fossil record is evidence and we've found none to show a "transformation" from one species to something hybrid that would exist between the old species and the new species it's allegedly supposed to become.
All species have a sudden appearance in the fossil record, followed by micro changes afterward. How did that sudden appearance occur?
What should that mythical "macro-evolution" creature look like? If it was possible to transition, it would have characteristics of both the old and the new...and if the change was gradual like Darwin said, it would be obvious in the fossil record.
Define “sudden.” I think this is the third time I’ve asked that. As for creatures with features of “old” and “new,” yeah, that’s pretty well exactly what we see in the fossil record. |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 22, 2022 4:11:07 GMT
Ah, I see your problem and you've got it backwards; there is no proof of that "potential" for one species to become another. Are we all evolving in a MICRO sense? Yes, thus you're correct that all species are "transitionary" is that small INTRA-SPECIES way.
But we've found no evidence that any species has jumped the rails, so to speak. The fossil record is evidence and we've found none to show a "transformation" from one species to something hybrid that would exist between the old species and the new species it's allegedly supposed to become.
All species have a sudden appearance in the fossil record, followed by micro changes afterward. How did that sudden appearance occur?
What should that mythical "macro-evolution" creature look like? If it was possible to transition, it would have characteristics of both the old and the new...and if the change was gradual like Darwin said, it would be obvious in the fossil record.
Define “sudden.” I think this is the third time I’ve asked that. As for creatures with features of “old” and “new,” yeah, that’s pretty well exactly what we see in the fossil record. “Darwin used the only illustration in the first edition of The Origin of Species to explain his hypothesis that the patterns of evolution over hundreds of millions of generations were the same as those at the level of populations and species. In fact, they are clearly distinct in all taxonomic groups. Evolution at the level of populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available morphospace. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types. The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, within less then 10 million years, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota.” (Carroll, Robert L. “Towards a New Evolutionary Synthesis,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 15, 2000, pp. 27-32.)
“We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.” (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 3.)
“The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.” (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187.)
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …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.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.)
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Jul 22, 2022 4:15:04 GMT
“Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.” (Mayr, E. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138.)
“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82.)
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 22, 2022 7:48:32 GMT
“Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.” (Mayr, E. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138.)
“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82.)
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24.)
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,098
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 22, 2022 8:49:30 GMT
Maybe this is what it means by "suddenly"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2022 8:52:35 GMT
“Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.” (Mayr, E. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138.)
“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82.)
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24.)
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? Suddenly... Pale is only half the man he used to be... Half man half ape.  |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Jul 22, 2022 14:30:50 GMT
“Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism…and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.” (Mayr, E. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138.)
“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.” (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 82.)
“Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago – and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals – and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years.” (Gould, Stephen J.,Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24.)
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? You are a very patient person.. But why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2022 16:06:05 GMT
So “suddenly” means “a few million years”? Is that what you mean by “suddenly”? You are a very patient person.. But why? My thought exactly. |
|
