You don’t see scientists spending much time proving they unicorns are imaginary either. The burden is on you to demonstrate those claims are valid. That’s how science works.
4 Likes
The people you quote are also on the record directly stating that they think they are being misrepresented by creationists saying things like you do. That’s not only evidence, that’s proof that your quotes are misrepresentations of their views:
My bold:
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 includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
So Gould thinks creationists are either lying or too stupid to understand him. Regardless of which is the real explanation for creationists continue to invoke Gould and his colleagues as arguing against evolution in the fossil record, such arguments are misrepresenting Gould’s views.
2 Likes
Then what is it you claim I have not supplied evidence for? You are the one who have made denials. And you have failed to supply evidence to support your denials.
Come on. What is wrong with your ability to reason from what they have been saying.
The reason why the invoked PE, is because they were sure they were not finding the TF, that Darwin had been predicting they would find.
Darwin confessed this, adding that maybe, possibly, it could be, that later one his predictions would reap fruit.
But, 100 years later, Patterson, Gould, Eldredge, and a number of other evolutionists have in one way or another let is be known that Darwin’s predictions were a bust.
And this is one way we know this is true. Because now evolutionists are saying that all fossils are transitional fossils, as an attempt to hide the fact that: "In 1980 Gould said,
‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’6"
Source: Gould grumbles about creationist 'hijacking'
AND: " The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:"
Source: Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes.
Yes, I dare. I KNOW, where I got the quote that others are trying to say is misquoted, taken out of contexts.
But, IT SAYS THE SAME THING AS THE PREVIOUS QUOTE.
And there are plenty more quotes from DIFFERENT EVOLUTIONISTS WHO ARE SAYING THE SAME THING.
Tell me. What else could the be saying. What they have said, is a far cry from, " there are mountains of transitional fossils and we can see a steady step by step transition as the descendants of one kind slowly are changing into a completely different organism".
They are not saying this.
They are denying there is solid supporting evidence supporting universal common descent found in the fossil record.
No. It shows that you misunderstood his position. Then you misrepresented his position. Now that you have specifically been corrected and continue with the same behavior, it can be fairly stated that you are lying about his position.
1 Like
Nothing. I just understand that the context your quotes are lifted out of. I have even explained it to you at length:
The quotes are demonstrably taken out of context as shown by Gould’s testimony in the Arkansas 1980 creationism trials, and they being used to support a case that they do not support.
You are once again confusing a dispute between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, as if it supports the claim that there are no transitional fossils, and that the fossil record does not support common descent.
Both those claims are false. There are transitional fossils and Gould thinks so, and the fossil record supports common descent.
The fossil record can support common descent without supporting phyletic gradualism, and transitional fossils can be rare without being non-existent.
Once again, there was a dispute regarding which of multiple theories of evolution the fossil record supported. Gould and his colleagues were criticizing a particular hypothesis called phyletic gradualism, and posited a competing hypothesis they called punctuated equilibrium. They claimed that under certain conceptions of the phyletic gradualism hypothesis, the fossil record could not support it. They still thought the fossil record supported gradual evolutionary change.
There isn’t any amount of quotes you can bring from Gould and colleagues criticizing phyletic gradualism that will magically make evidence supporting evolution from the fossil record go away. And they still thought the fossil record supported gradual evolutionary change, even though they claimed it did not support phyletic gradualism. They gave multiple concrete examples of gradual evolutionary change exhibited by the fossil record.
You have either failed to view my evidence, or you are simply to stubborn to accept what they say.
Or you are simply on shaky ground and don’t know where to turn, so to try and save face, you keep harping to that which you feel will support your stance.
And you have failed to take into consideration the other scientists that I have submitted and how they also reject universal common descent.
Here is Bechly stating there is no observed gradations for one species to that of another found in the fossil record.
You are misrepresenting what the video says.
Either watch the video or stand down.
If you post it six more times it will magically become true. Go, hurry.
2 Likes
No. But, maybe you will get the idea that you need to supply the evidence that disputes the evidence.
It contradicts what you believe. And there are a number of other scientists who disagree with what you believe.
You think this is a fight. It isn’t. It information you need to use to rethink what you have been told.
Let me know how that turns out for you.
As far s what is questioned about Darwinism, there are scientists who are questioning universal common descent.
I already have. And here. And here.
You have ignored it completely. Not a single response to any substantive point that look at any evidence in detail.
@John_Harshman has repeatedly tried to engage you on similar points concerning the nested hierarchy, the scientific method, and the nature of the fossil record.
I have also called for you to at least try to explain, in your own words, why scientists think a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not, as you have asserted, just mere baseless speculation. You have ignored that too.
Your claims to be here to discuss substance is just not true. It’s clear you’re only here to spam quotes and you lack any real understanding of the subject, just as you lack the willingness to engage on real substance.
4 Likes
The fact that after alleged years of studying evolution, you don’t even realize that it doesn’t happen to single organisms.
The fact that you tout hearsay as testimony. Does the Bible suggest that hearsay is a good thing?
Try to keep people straight. I didn’t say that, which itself is more evidence of your dishonesty.
Secondhand quotes that you have not checked for accuracy or context. Presenting hearsay as testimony is dishonest. You show zero sign of understanding evolution at the high-school level.
It’s in pretty much every one of your posts.
2 Likes
My posts are mine. Where is your evidence to support your position?
Where is your evidence Gould did not say the following?
"“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:
“The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact 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.”
Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never -seen- in the rocks.
Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant 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 never see the very process we profess to study.
[Evolution’s Erratic Pace - “Natural History,” May, 1977]”
― Stephen Jay Gould"
Source: Quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the...”
Now how would you interpret what is being stated?
Here’s another quote from the same person at a different time.
"In 1980 Gould said,
‘The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.’6"
Source: https://creation.com/gould-grumbles-about-creationist-hijacking
Now, are both of these quotes not saying the same thing? Are they not both questioning idea that transitional fossils are found?
Patterson, a colleague of Gould were thinking the same thing.
" > ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added]."
Source: https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils#:~:text=Note%20what%20Patterson%20said%20in,with%20creationists%2C%20cryptic%20or%20overt.
And if there is any doubt about the sentiment that he is expressing.
Here is Patterson again, clarifying what he is saying.
" ‘It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ’ [Emphasis added]."
Source: https://creation.com/that-quote-about-the-missing-transitional-fossils#:~:text=Note%20what%20Patterson%20said%20in,with%20creationists%2C%20cryptic%20or%20overt.
And here is a prominent paleontologist, supporting the views of both scientists above. And this guy was a devout evolutionist himself.
Yes, they are. They provide ample evidence of dishonesty. You relentlessly tout hearsay as testimony. Does the Bible suggest that hearsay is a good thing?
Note how you are failing to address my most basic point: you portray evolution as happening to individuals, when no one who studies evolutionary biology asserts anything of the sort.
Start with the sequence evidence. How many sequences have you examined and aligned yourself? It would have to have been a lot for any honest person, even if totally wrong, to make any claims about absence of evidence.
Also, I’ll point out the rank hypocrisy of your selective credentialism. Are credentials evidence, or are they only evidence when the person holding them thinks (or appears to think) as you do?
2 Likes
@rtmcdge hellooo buddy, are you there? Going to start engaging any of this anytime soon?
I already have. And here. And here.
You have ignored it completely. Not a single response to any substantive point that look at any evidence in detail.
@John_Harshman has repeatedly tried to engage you on similar points concerning the nested hierarchy, the scientific method, and the nature of the fossil record.
I have also called for you to at least try to explain, in your own words, why scientists think a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution and not, as you have asserted, just mere baseless speculation. You have ignored that too.
Your claims to be here to discuss substance is just not true. It’s clear you’re only here to spam quotes and you lack any real understanding of the subject, just as you lack the willingness to engage on real substance.
3 Likes
20a%20bush.
Why because they were having problems with the tree. They have had to continually move organisms from one spot to another, finding they were before or after other organisms.
And remember this that you have submitted, is not empirical science. It is based upon supposition, as much as it your claims that the fossil record supports universal common ancestry.
Until you can find that common ancestor and take a sample of DNA, and prove the different kinds of lifeforms came directly from an infusion of its DNA, there is no reason to accept that those kinds of organisms reproducing others of their own kind today, and in the past, had not always been doing so, from the time of their inception.
And there is more hard empirical evidence that supports this than that unsubstantiated research you have submitted.
And stop trying to snow me under with different responses. Split them up so I can answer them soundly.
You don’t know what “empirical” means. Here’s my empirical publication record:
I predict that you will ignore it and my credentials.
Literally not a single one of your links deals with the paper I cited in any way. Nor does any of the links purport to provide an explanation for the consilience of phylogenies detailed therein.
As explained to you previously, that response confuses a dispute about the order of relationships within a family tree, with a dispute about whether anyone in the family are even related.
Disputes about the order of relationships (who is most closely related to who?) do nothing to show the species in the tree are not related to each other. You can have uncertainty about the exact order, but simultaneously be very certain they are related.
You don’t seem to understand what empirical means. Empirical means measurable or observable. They perform tests on the data for the existence of a certain pattern, and then report the results of that measurement. Is that pattern there in the data? How good is that pattern? That meets the very definition of empirical.
You have offered no alternative explanation to common descent for that pattern.
1 Like
Mostly your claims are gobbledygook. If there was any real science there, there should be real scientific results to back it up. There are many applications for evolutionary theory in modern science. Your sources don’t have anything that produces real world working results.
Apologetics are not science. You seem to have a hard time understanding this concept.
5 Likes
Please provide evidence what I have provided is irrelevant.
And your question is irrelevant. Take my evidence and either disprove it, or yield to it.