Quantcast
46% of Americans believe in Creationism

Forums - General Discussion - 46% of Americans believe in Creationism

allenmaher said:
OooSnap said:
Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils.

Living and amber fossils doesn't give credence to the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

The story about humans rapidly evolved from some ape ancestor in just
5-7 million years (which requires drastic anatomical, biochemical,
physiological etc. changes is ridiculous. The common answer I receive on this is something of the effect of "because they just so happen to be increased
competition." I call this utter dog poo. That's really one weak cop-out to explain it away.

There are thousands of organisms, some even supposedly 140+ million years, that are virtually the same. You would think all those supposed meteor impacts, ice ages, genetic mutations, volcanic eruptions etc. etc., they would have evolved as much as humans supposedly evolved in the last 7 million years or so. But nope according to the evolutionists.

Some examples of organisms that supposedly said no to Evolution even after millions and millions and millions and millions of years:

Peripatopsis: South Africa "endless-walk type of family Onychophora. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. With more than 500 million years of stability. Therefore, peripatopsis conveniently votes no for evolution.

Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell because it's unusual shape, is a kind of Lingula brachiopods. No fossils or lead away the lingula. This creature has unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years. Lingula conveniently votes no to evolution.

Neopilina and Nucula: Two kinds of marine animals both have retained the same manner as their ancestors had more than 400 million years. They also vote no for evolution.

Pyenogonum: A kind of fifty marine species which resemble spiders. They have not changed since 350 million years. These troublemakers vote no for Devonian evolution.

Hutchinsoniella: A bottom-dwelling marine genus of the family
cephocardia remained constant at 340 million years. Another vote for no change.

Liphistius spiders hatch. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to spiders hatch now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene, 55 million years, is identical to the species of modern times. Again, we find creatures that appear suddenly in great shape and stay the same at present. With bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution.


Nautilus: A kind of shellfish which has defied evolution 270 million years. One more vote for no change.

Anaspids: a kind of sectoral water bugs and Limulus: The horseshoe
crab fossils from both 250 million years. Neither has changed over the
centuries. Again, two more vote against evolution.

Latimeria chalumnae: A coelacanth, a species of ray-finned fishes glans remained unchanged for 200 million years. No fossils or lead away of Latimeria. This voice Triassic surviving prohibition period of evolution.

Entemnotrochus: Another type of marine animals that have no
ancestors known. It has a fossil record dating back 180 million years.
They have not changed. Entemnotrochus votes no to evolution.

Ornithorhynchus anatinus: duck-billed platypus has remained unchanged for 160 million years. They vote not to evolution.

Sphenodon punctatus: Tuatara usually called in English. This reptile
has no known ancestors and descendants do not know. And showed little
change for 140 million years since the late Jurassic. He voted no to
change too.

Leiopelma: An archaic frog of the genus in New Zealand. They are considered living fossils from the Cretaceous period. For 135 million years these frogs have resisted change. Again, no evolution. Therefore, votes Leiopelma no to evolution.

Apteryx Genre kiwi, a flightless bird. Their fossil date from the Cretaceous period 95 million years. The bird has not changed. Apteryx votes no to evolution.

Lepisosteus: Garfish; Lanthanotus boorneenish: A family of lizards of moderate size, and Didelphis: Opossums are all represented in the fossil record 70 million years ago. They have not changed. Gar, lizards, possums and all vote no to evolution.

Cheroptera: Bats. Again, we see creatures make a sudden appearancein the form we know them today. The oldest known bat, 50 million years.is indistinguishable from modern bats. We have a continuous fossil record of these animals since the beginning of the Eocene period. No sign of change and their ancestors are unknown. Bats vote no to evolution.

Insects: Ants, mites and aphids have been captured a yellow ooze together in 35 million years. Their appearances have not changed. Insofar as evolution goes, all three insects have stalled since. Where are the effects of mutations and natural selection? For 35 million years these forces have somehow bypassed the ants, mites and aphids. instead of a gradual change, there are three compelling examples of long-term stability. Ants, aphids, mites and all vote no to evolution.

Tupaia: Treeshrews; ferox Crytoprocta: Mongoose, and Dicerorhinus sumatrensis: Rhinoceros all fossil records of 30 million years. No significant changes occurred. All three did not vote for evolution.

Tipirus: Tapirs look the same as their 25 million year old ancestors. Also vote no to evolution.

Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articles/fossils-vote-on-evolution-169225.html

How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.

Here is an interesting video on amber fossils. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6rvCR5TmkA


 

For the record macro evolution is BS.  All evolution consists of changes in heritable traits (genetic information) within a population of individuals.  These genetic changes will over time alter populations such that they become incompatible (infertile) with other populations.  Phenotypic changes, the way things look, does not always change. Appearances and body forms that have survival advantage tend to be around an exceptionally long time.  Other phenotypes, such as those that will help you get a mate are also strongly selected for.  The rate of change in a population is governed by several things, the manner of reproduction (asexual, sexual, male/female preferences, and so on), the lifespan of individuals in the population, and exposure to mutagens along with the species genetic repair mechanisms.  A fossil or a species is simply a snapshot of a population in time, they are constantly evolving.

While mutation is random, selection is not.  Sharks are incredibly adept animals and have many features that have endured for a long time for example, this does not mean that they do not evolve, they do change (developing a very interesting adaptation to the increasing salinity of the oceans for example).  Your other examples are all, well, just silly straw man arguments that don't hold up on close examination. Any resemblance of a 50 million year old fossil to a modern species is likely partial skeletal similarity (there are not a lot of complete 50 million year old skeletons) and artist renderings using modern examples to flesh out the massive amount of information we don't know about those species.  There are 1240 or so bat species today for example, which points to the exact opposite of your claim, they have evolved and radiated into a magnificent array of populations that have common ancestry and some similar inherited traits.

I am sure you  will take issue with me not addressing every single one of your straw men, but believe it or not time is limited.  If you spent some time checking your arguments, I think you would find them all to be fallacious since they are based largely on the eronious arguments of macro evolution.  The encyclopedia of life ( http://eol.org/) is a great starting place where you can see a tremendous number of different species and thier common ancestors, plus lots of fun nifty stuff about them.  EOL tends to deal with current species but there are great credible paelentology sites out there too.


I agree Macroevolution is BS. But other evolution proponents on this forum say otherwise.

Phenotypic changes? You mean phenotype? The way things looks does not always change? What?

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Evolutionists are shocked to see it. It was not expected. It goes against their evolution story pressupposition. Hence the following quote:

“Many leading evolutionary theorists ... have been persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366:223–224.

To say "well, some organisms just don't evolve even after 400+ million years" is a cheap cop-out. Seriously, it makes me laugh to think people think of evolution as scientific.

Prove that bats evolved. The following scientistswill take issue with your claim:

“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392

 

 

 



Around the Network
OooSnap said:

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Again, you prove that you have no clue what evolution is. Evolution is not "Let's evolve into something different, just because it is fun". There are reasons why things evolved into other things and why other things no longer evolved into more other things. Humans did not evolve from an ape ancestor, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But you alread< knew that, so there is no point in explaining it to you. You won't listen. This is something I've been wondering about the creatonists/die hard biblical lot, for like, ever: Why do these people feel so frightened about science?




OooSnap said:

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

 

I don't know about english wiki, but under amber in french counter parts they talk about some ancestror bee found in amber and other thing, and can follow up with google some discovery who talk about evolution in amber..

Anyway, i am surprised so many americain blindly trust a books writed per men with so many error in  this.

Here almost nobody trust in god anymore at least not how its describe in bible.

Lot of ppl have read bible, so if its the trust, how can this many religion come from same books in first place, just because ppl see what they want to see in this and nothing more, and its more easy to hope to heaven, and in a god who forgive every error and love you no matter what, that/then/as take/ing care of the earth we have and work to love everyone around us.

Btw i learned bible for over 5years, and i think its just a man books where we can follow some amazing thing in this, but you have to choice well and not take out of the context of when this was writed.

Sorry for my english per the way.



dsgrue3 said:
OooSnap said:
@dsgrue

Sorry, I can't use the quote button with the device I am using.

Well, here are more recent quotes:

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

For the Berkeley link who is the author?

So why do you still believe it when people in the evolutionist camp have doubts?


As I quoted earlier it was expected to find transitional fossils, hence the quotes. Why did Gould and Eldridge postulate PE?

You do know there are millions of fossils archived? You would think they would have clear cut transitional forms.

Okay.

Well, your first source does nothing to further your argument or deny mine in that they are the same process. It simply says that Darwin, 150 years ago, didn't think microevolution was enough to produce macroevolution. As I've shown already, Darwin was wrong in this regard as current scientist do agree that these are idential processes with only time being the differentiating factor.

Requested Berkeley Source(s):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/about.php

I have no idea what you were attempting to address with your second source. It doesn't really say much of anything. It basically says we need to combine the evidence from different scientific fields to synthesize our understanding of evolution, and I think we've done quite a good job at that since that document was written.

We have tons of transitional fossils as I've explained already. You simply want ALL of them and that's an unrealistic expectation. Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

There are probably even more than millions of fossils, they are simply duplicates. But when there are an estimated 1-4 billion species to have existed, it's not at all surprising.

Punctuated equillibrium is still an evolutionary theory, not a creationist one, so I have no idea why you're arguing for it as it still would go against what you believe.



"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

Did you read it carefully? It reads macroevolution can't be observed and it can't be extrapoloated from processes observed  at the population level.

None of your links show any photos that gives credence that it is an intermediate form nor is there anything about consensus of scientists that endorse their claim. Moreover there is no scientific evidence in any of your links that support its claims. Claiming something is an transitional form is much easier than providing scientific evidence that it is. Paleontology is a very subjective science

As you know if you have read the quotes, scientists admit the fossil record doesn't give credence to the evolution story.  You can read the quotes here http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

I never argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. It was a theory postulated to explain away the absence of clear cut transitional forms that would give credence to the evolution story. Gould was open about the absence of transitional forms "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." (Gould; Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin)."



drkohler said:
OooSnap said:

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Again, you prove that you have no clue what evolution is. Evolution is not "Let's evolve into something different, just because it is fun". There are reasons why things evolved into other things and why other things no longer evolved into more other things. Humans did not evolve from an ape ancestor, apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But you alread< knew that, so there is no point in explaining it to you. You won't listen. This is something I've been wondering about the creatonists/die hard biblical lot, for like, ever: Why do these people feel so frightened about science?

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

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.

 



Around the Network
g911turbo said:

Well, if it makes you feel better, by nature these surveys are bullshit.  Look at the source.  1012 random adults.  1012.  1012!!!!... out of 300,000,000+.  In my humble opinion, too small a sample size to be relevant right off the bat.

And just because someone voted for "God created in present form", doesn't mean they are denying science.  They might not have listened well.  They might not have "gave a shit" and felt pressured into saying yes to the survey and they cruised as fast as possible through it.  Etc. Etc.

Have you ever taken a phone survey?  I think I have, once.  Wanted to gouge my eyes out.  So fuck this survey, and stop spazing out.

 

Survey Methods 

Results for this USA Today/Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 10-13, 2012, with a random sample of 1,012 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

View methodology, full question results, and trend data.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit www.gallup.com.

1012 is a pretty solid sample size. If you conduct the random sample correctly, you get pretty accurate results, hence, the margin of error of 4 percent.



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.



OooSnap said:
dsgrue3 said:
OooSnap said:
@dsgrue

Sorry, I can't use the quote button with the device I am using.

Well, here are more recent quotes:

"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

For the Berkeley link who is the author?

So why do you still believe it when people in the evolutionist camp have doubts?


As I quoted earlier it was expected to find transitional fossils, hence the quotes. Why did Gould and Eldridge postulate PE?

You do know there are millions of fossils archived? You would think they would have clear cut transitional forms.

Okay.

Well, your first source does nothing to further your argument or deny mine in that they are the same process. It simply says that Darwin, 150 years ago, didn't think microevolution was enough to produce macroevolution. As I've shown already, Darwin was wrong in this regard as current scientist do agree that these are idential processes with only time being the differentiating factor.

Requested Berkeley Source(s):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/about.php

I have no idea what you were attempting to address with your second source. It doesn't really say much of anything. It basically says we need to combine the evidence from different scientific fields to synthesize our understanding of evolution, and I think we've done quite a good job at that since that document was written.

We have tons of transitional fossils as I've explained already. You simply want ALL of them and that's an unrealistic expectation. Here you go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#fish

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

There are probably even more than millions of fossils, they are simply duplicates. But when there are an estimated 1-4 billion species to have existed, it's not at all surprising.

Punctuated equillibrium is still an evolutionary theory, not a creationist one, so I have no idea why you're arguing for it as it still would go against what you believe.



"Evolutionary biologists have long sought to understand the relationship between microevolution (adaptation), which can be observed both in nature and in the laboratory, and macroevolution (speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs), which cannot be witnessed because it occurs over intervals that far exceed the human lifespan. . . . [from the abstract] "Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of a transition between them. These discontinuities, plus the discontinuous appearance and disappearance of taxa in the fossil record, form the modern conceptual divide between microevolution and macroevolution. . . . "Most evolutionary biologists think that Darwin explained macroevolution simply as microevolution writ large. In fact, Darwin had rather more to say about the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and invoked additional principles to define it. . . . "Darwin's proposal carries a more general message for contemporary discussions of macroevolution, namely that microevolution alone cannot explain macroevolution." (David N. Reznick and Robert E. Ricklefs, "Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Nature 457:837,838,841, Feb. 12, 2009)

"New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life." (Carroll, Robert L. [Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, Canada], "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32, p.27)

Did you read it carefully? It reads macroevolution can't be observed and it can't be extrapoloated from processes observed  at the population level.

None of your links show any photos that gives credence that it is an intermediate form nor is there anything about consensus of scientists that endorse their claim. Moreover there is no scientific evidence in any of your links that support its claims. Claiming something is an transitional form is much easier than providing scientific evidence that it is. Paleontology is a very subjective science

As you know if you have read the quotes, scientists admit the fossil record doesn't give credence to the evolution story.  You can read the quotes here http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

I never argued for Punctuated Equilibrium. It was a theory postulated to explain away the absence of clear cut transitional forms that would give credence to the evolution story. Gould was open about the absence of transitional forms "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." (Gould; Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin)."

I bet you don't even understand the quotes you're posting.  You clearly didn't understand the ones you just gave for sure.  I underlined the part that you didn't bold that completely explains what the bold was even saying to begin with.  I should be asking you the exact same question you're asking the guy you're arguing with.  DID YOU READ CAREFULLY?  The guy CLEARLY said that evolutionary  phenomena cannot be UNDERSTOOD (not that it isn't there, and coming up next another word that you should read carefully) SOLELY on the basis of extrapolation etc. etc.  

You put on a facade of intelligence, but in reality you don't understand a thing.



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



OOOsnap: Again you are playing the "quote-mining" game. As I said before, nobody is going to check your quotes (often over 30 years old) just to figure out what the WHOLE articles actually said. I'm sure each of your quoted authors has changed her/his mind a few times on certain things or were found out simply wrong (as new ideas have been forwarded and new discoveries have been made since). That is just how science works.