Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It appears to me what Gee has stated has gone right over your head. The arguement had nothing to do with Gee's belief in evolution. It had everything to do with his clear statement that there is no evidence in the fossil record that can be used to support or prove evolution. Because that evidence (IS GONE). I did not misinterpret his words. And it was never about, if Gee is a believer in evolution or not. Of course he believes evolution, he just confirms the fossil record cannot prove it. And I agree.
Your original post states that the theory of evolution is collapsing before our very eyes. You then quote scientists who state that evolution is not linear or gradual (as some originally thought 150 years ago), at least one of which (Gould) states that the fossil record shows us exactly what we now would expect, which is more sudden changes. Now, instead of the theory of evolution collapsing, you're claiming you were merely arguing that the fossil record does not support it, and that some scientists claim the same. Gee's issue involves the direct lines of lineage some try to draw between species (which, you are correct, the fossil record does not support that) when we cannot know the exact path evolution has taken, and it is almost definitely more complex than the fossil record shows, for the simple fact that fossils are not that common. We cannot look at the fossil record and claim, "x evolved the feature (y) at this point in time (a) and this reason (b)." That does not mean the fossil record does not support evolution, it just means the fossil record alone gives us an incomplete view of it. Just as family photos merely convey specific points in a lifetime, and cannot describe the complete entire life of a person. But the photos do factually show specific occurrences, so that we can be certain the person did exist and did x on the date of y, possibly for this reason (z). If that's all you're really arguing, then you and I are, in fact, in agreement along with Gee. And if that's all you're arguing, then I do apologize for misinterpreting you original post in this thread.
There is no misquoting here. It is a simple understanding that as a believer in evolution, Stephen Gould honestly stated that the fossil record did not support the theory of evolution. And that is why he pointed to their extreme rarity as a trade secret of paleontology. And that is why he stated that what is found in our text books was only (INFERENCE), and not based on fossils.
The late Stephen Jay Gould was a prolific writer and I have a shelf full of his books and have read every one of them. It's just ridiculous to use anything he has written to support a case against evolution because the man devoted his career to studying it. He supported the concept that there are periods in geologic and evolutionary history in which evolution can occur at a much faster pace. One of the most obvious reasons that such a thing could take place is that when we've had mass extinctions that have wiped out a large percentage of plants and animals in a very short time period it completely changes the dynamics of evolution. It is extremely likely that if the dinosaurs had never been wiped out in a geologic instant that mammals would never have evolved to the extent that they have today because they were held in check by the dinosaurs. Once the dinosaurs were removed from the environment it leveled the playing field and a vast number of new species evolved which eventually led to primates and finally modern man.
Gould goes into great detail about a number of transitional fossils that have been discovered. His books are generally a collection of essays on various topics and are some of the most interesting scientific writings that I've ever read. If you're looking for someone to undermine evolution, Gould is not your man.
He states that it's a rarity, not nonexistent (which is what you're saying). And you should really quote the entire thing:
As I stated earlier, Gould is simply arguing against Darwin's gradualist view of evolution, which in fact the fossil record does not reflect. You are not misquoting, you're "underquoting", ie., quote-mining. And apparently you missed the quote I posted earlier where Gould himself expresses his irritation at being misquoted by creationists.
And yet when one rejects Darwins gradualism, all your left with is Punctuated Equilibrium. And what both of these theories have in common is the fact, that they both are based on an unsubstantiated hypotheses.
I did not misquote Gould, for I simply pointed out his view that the fossil record did not support evolution. Now, I can't speak for others who may of miss quoted him.
And yet when one rejects Darwins gradualism, all your left with is Punctuated Equilibrium. And what both of these theories have in common is the fact, that they both are based on an unsubstantiated hypotheses.
I did not misquote Gould, for I simply pointed out his view that the fossil record did not support evolution. Now, I can't speak for others who may of miss quoted him.
I still think you are using unexplained problems in an evidence - supported theory to reject the theory. For no better reason that because of creationist dogma.
You are also following Creationist dogma in apparently making the same error as when it is suggested that science is 'wrong' because it changes its mind.
To use Cosmology as an example, Since the geocentric theory was replaced by the heliocentric, it has not been 'wrong'. Even in the post Einstein era Copernicus is still valid, though his theory did not explain a lot that needed relativity to explain it. But we didn't argue that it was an 'unsubstantiated hypothesis' because of that. But that is what you are doing here in respect of evolution.
You are apparently arguing that Darwin's theory is disproved by gaps in the fossil record. It is not. Like most science theories (like cosmology), it is turning out to be not as simple as first thought. Those gaps don't matter too much. The evidence we have is sufficient for anyone taking an unprejudiced look to accept that life has developed over a long period of time, by some method or other. Since natural selection had been proven to where even Creationists accept it, what other mechanism could suggest itself? Especially as the transitionals suggest that natural selection is what did it.
You do yourself no favours by quoting from Jay Gould or others as though they were disagreeing with evolution but then having to admit that maybe they weren't but you are.
Your are merely trying to proselytize by cloaking your words in contradictions and ignorant faith in the unknown. Without regard to what you claim, this is what you are doing. Yet you attempt to appear impervious to it or any discussion that may cause you thought.
A true pity. Your beliefs leave you with no oppourunity to grow or learn. You rely only on gawd says so and you claim faith in it and only anything that seems (usually incorrectly) to support that belief. True tunnel vision.
What the true pity is your blatant disregard in curiousity of something you have no idea upon the very foundation in which it is ordained. I for one, have plenty of opportunity to learn from my faith, as I have undoubtedly over and over again through the course of my life, something you are oblivious to and will always be unless get to know me. It may be unknown to you, but rather very real to me, as I have seen the consistency of its involovement in my life. Why do you think Jesus, speaking to the Pharisees, proclaimed its "unknown" factor to them? Because they did not know of its nature, but rather sought a tangible, earthly system, when in fact it was not. It isn't my job to prove to you, but rather be a witness to you, and let the Holy Spirit "regenerate" you into the faith, something that has, as well, been ordained from the beginning of time.
Tunnel vision is aqcuired by ignoring things that don't pertain to you about the things you represent and believe. Like I said, I always am open to free thought and discussion about various things in life, and have been in several faiths and ideals contrary to Christianity, however landing into the faith that I am in now, confortable and secure in my future with it.
Your original post states that the theory of evolution is collapsing before our very eyes. You then quote scientists who state that evolution is not linear or gradual (as some originally thought 150 years ago), at least one of which (Gould) states that the fossil record shows us exactly what we now would expect, which is more sudden changes. Now, instead of the theory of evolution collapsing, you're claiming you were merely arguing that the fossil record does not support it, and that some scientists claim the same. Gee's issue involves the direct lines of lineage some try to draw between species (which, you are correct, the fossil record does not support that) when we cannot know the exact path evolution has taken, and it is almost definitely more complex than the fossil record shows, for the simple fact that fossils are not that common. We cannot look at the fossil record and claim, "x evolved the feature (y) at this point in time (a) and this reason (b)." That does not mean the fossil record does not support evolution, it just means the fossil record alone gives us an incomplete view of it. Just as family photos merely convey specific points in a lifetime, and cannot describe the complete entire life of a person. But the photos do factually show specific occurrences, so that we can be certain the person did exist and did x on the date of y, possibly for this reason (z). If that's all you're really arguing, then you and I are, in fact, in agreement along with Gee. And if that's all you're arguing, then I do apologize for misinterpreting you original post in this thread.
For years, the family tree use to be based on what science claimed was revealed in the fossil record. Yet for a Christian to suggest that the fossils record did not paint such a picture. Such a claim by them would be considered by believers in evolution, as unscientific heresy. However, now that some high level believers in evolution have seen the error of their way. They are now agreeing with what Christians have been saying all along, at least on the fossil records lack of evidence. Of course, this is just one small battle, yet, the outcome agrees with Christians beliefs. The reality is. The fossils record is just another one of evolutions false beliefs based on presumed science. Hopefully, this revelation will make people think twice before they fully imbrace any scientific future claims made about evolution. The reality that fossils do not exist to support a family tree or bush, only reveals all the more. That evolution is more of an unsubstantiated hypotheses, and far from a fact that some would have us believe.
The late Stephen Jay Gould was a prolific writer and I have a shelf full of his books and have read every one of them. It's just ridiculous to use anything he has written to support a case against evolution because the man devoted his career to studying it. He supported the concept that there are periods in geologic and evolutionary history in which evolution can occur at a much faster pace. One of the most obvious reasons that such a thing could take place is that when we've had mass extinctions that have wiped out a large percentage of plants and animals in a very short time period it completely changes the dynamics of evolution. It is extremely likely that if the dinosaurs had never been wiped out in a geologic instant that mammals would never have evolved to the extent that they have today because they were held in check by the dinosaurs. Once the dinosaurs were removed from the environment it leveled the playing field and a vast number of new species evolved which eventually led to primates and finally modern man.
Gould goes into great detail about a number of transitional fossils that have been discovered. His books are generally a collection of essays on various topics and are some of the most interesting scientific writings that I've ever read. If you're looking for someone to undermine evolution, Gould is not your man.
Gould and I do not agree on much, that is for sure. Yet we do agree on one thing. The fossil record does not, and will not support the theory of Evolution. And any other theory out there is just more unsubstantiated hypotheses. If you want to claim science, stick to the facts. .
He gets into a detailed discussion about the evolution of the whale and towards the end he clearly states that intermediate fossils have in fact been discovered that fill in some of the lineage of the whale. He doesn't agree with your statement that there are no transitional fossils and in fact describes some of them in this essay. Gould can be difficult to read until you get used to his style of writing. You've taken one particular comment that he made but haven't taken into account the overall body of work that he has written which paints a different picture than you're suggesting.
For years, the family tree use to be based on what science claimed was revealed in the fossil record. Yet for a Christian to suggest that the fossils record did not paint such a picture. Such a claim by them would be considered by believers in evolution, as unscientific heresy. However, now that some high level believers in evolution have seen the error of their way. They are now agreeing with what Christians have been saying all along, at least on the fossil records lack of evidence. Of course, this is just one small battle, yet, the outcome agrees with Christians beliefs. The reality is. The fossils record is just another one of evolutions false beliefs based on presumed science. Hopefully, this revelation will make people think twice before they fully imbrace any scientific future claims made about evolution. The reality that fossils do not exist to support a family tree or bush, only reveals all the more. That evolution is more of an unsubstantiated hypotheses, and far from a fact that some would have us believe.
The fossil record most certainly does support evolution, it simply doesn't (and cannot) fill in all the gaps. That's why the theory of evolution is not based on fossils alone, nor could it be. If you choose to believe otherwise, more power to you, but that doesn't make it true.
Quote mining again are ya Tom? Here is an excerpt from Montana's link, for Campbell's reading pleasure, as I suspect he will ignore your link. It refutes what he claims about Goulds claiming the fossil record is not supporting evolution....
The first “terrestrial” vertebrates retained six to eight digits on each limb (more like a fish paddle than a hand), a persistent tailfin, and a lateral-line system for sensing sound vibrations underwater. The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory—for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw.
Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
