Quotes by evolutionists

[artsylady]

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states 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

.

He was talking about a specific type of evolution, perhaps you didnt understand that because the sentence structure confused you.

Do you agree now?

Well, if he was talking about gradulatistic evolution, then no, I still don't see the problem because the words "for gradualtistic accoutns of evolution" is right there in the quote. Is he talking about another specific type of evolution that is not included in the quote?

[artsylady]

He reconciles the problem?

He just goes on theorizing with no evidence.

Let's admit, Punctuated Equilibrium was devised because of this lack of existance of fossils.

Are there still evolutionists who cling to gradualism?

  " 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states 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. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

    I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127)

Check out words like evisage, imagine? What's scientific about this, first of all?

Second, where's the evidence?

And third, are you trying to say that Gould is saying that there actually is evidence for gradualism?

No, he's not. The quote is not out of context because taking that portion of it does not change the meaning of what he's said here at all. The fact remains that there are a lack of these particular types of fossils, it's a problem and Gould goes on trying to imagine why that is.

[artsylady]

Are there still evolutionists who cling to gradualism?

Probably. Does it matter?

Well yes it does. That's what the quote addresses.

QUOTE

Let's admit, Punctuated Equilibrium was devised because of this lack of existance of fossils.

Welcome to science, we hope you enjoy your stay.

Thank you for admitting this.

Now, why did they have a theory in the first place if there was no evidence to support this?

Is this scientific? lol. These discussions are just too funny sometimes.

[artsylady]

Ian:

You claimed that Intelligent Design was not scientific simply because it contradicted a current scientific theory.

How is this any different that punctuated equilibrium replacing gradualism? By your own parameters, you have to then admit that PE is not scientific also.

I will now go back to adding my own parameters to the definition of science.

You keep adding your own.

Must be based on naturalistic means

Must not contradict a current scientific theory.

Now, I'm going to add another one that we all do know is true,

Must not contradict evolutionary theory. 

When are you going to recognize the hypocrisy here?

[artsylady]

It's called an hypothesis, and there is evidence to support it. Punctuated equilibrium is an explanation of what we see, it is a mildly different form of evolution. There's no problem with evolution, its the fine details that are being discussed.

Well then both gradualism and PE are both hypotheses with no evidence to support either.

And evolution needs ONE of these to sustain itself, so you may as well admit that evolution is simply a hypothes as well.

[artsylady]

PE is scientific, because it follows the scientific method.

PE was invented because of a lack of evidence. How is that scientific?

[artsylady]

I see no evidence that Creationists try to misrepresent context when they quote Evolutionsits.

Yes, it's just another lie that the folks at Talk Origins would have us believe - that Creationists take the quotes of evolutionists out of context. Just like Colin Paterson, curator of the British Museum who admitted he didn't know of any transitionals. He was supposedly 'taken out of context' because he didn't know there were any creationists in the audience. Can you believe that?

Another huge lie is that creationists ignore evidence. Possibly layman arguing might ignore a thing or two, but certainly scientists do not IGNORE anything at all. This is just another lie.

It's a fact that Evolutionists, starting with Darwin, have had a serious problem finding transitionals fossils that they expected Evolution to have produced.

Yes, even those that they call transitionals, number in less than a thousand. And considering the fact that there are millions of fossils out there now, the number of transitionals should also be in the millions at least.

I've taken a look at these transitionals and there is nothing mildly intriguing about them.

Evolutionists don't like to talk about the problems of Evolution.

I think a lot of it is due in part to sites like Talk Origins where they brainwash people into believing that there are no problems.

Gould talked openly about the problem, but only to promote his theory, his theory about why Evolution shouldn't have left the expected evidence.

Again I ask, where was the evidence for gradualism anyway and since there is none, what ever did make that hypothesis (or theory or law! ) scientific at all??

Now, lay Evolutionists insist it's not a problem because Gould has a theory. But, just because in theory Evolution shouldn't leave much evidence, there still is the problem of us more skeptical folk still expecting evidence.

Yes, what a wonderful theory (or hypothesis) that is. It requires no evidence! How convenient for evolution.

I just don't get what makes this so much more scientific than creationism or ID.

As for Gould's theory, Punctuated equilibrium, it's pure wishful thinking. He never developed a real mechanism for it and his insistance that Evolution can happen too fast to leave fossils highlights the question of how come Scientists cannot reproduce material Evolution in a lab.

Yeah, that's why Ian C didn't want to answer my question as to how it happens.

[fenwar]

The evidence for Gradualism is that Evolution happens too slowely to be seen in the lab or field.  The evidence for PE is that Evolution happens too fast to be seen in the fossil record.   

I'd just point out that these two statements aren't mutually exclusive...