By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
OooSnap on 21 October 2013
Edit Thread
drkohler said:
OooSnap said:

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

The answer to both questions is no, of course. And I don't need to "take it up with the evolutionists" because there is nothing to disagree with what they say. Just because you misinterpret what they say ("Darwin didn't know everything so evolution is wrong"), or simply because you can't understand what they are actually ("We haven't found every intermediate species so evolution is wrong") saying because of lack of scientific education (which I have), doesn't change the fact that evolution is real and the theorie of evolution is the best explanation we currently have. On the other hand, stuffing two of everything on a giant wooden arc is NOT a good explanation.

 

How do you interpret the following?

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)

"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."
Stephen Jay Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980