Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

So daws do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?

 

[daws101]

"There is a HUGE difference between superstitious belief and spirituality. While superstitious beliefs can indeed manifest themselves through spirituality, and in fact, are the result of spirituality to some degree, they do not define human spirituality. They are compelling evidence that humans do spiritually connect to something, which causes such beliefs. This is not to say their beliefs are validated, but the reason they exist is human spirituality.

You mentioned the Aztecs, and we could mention all kinds of ancient cultures we've discovered around the world, and how they practiced human spirituality. Does it not seem the least bit curious to you, that we find evidence of human spirituality everywhere, when humans had no perceivable knowledge of other cultures? Isn't it strange they all had these similar rituals of worshiping something greater than self, yet had no awareness of other cultures doing the same thing elsewhere? How can you rationally explain this? Well, I suppose we could imagine that all humans came from the same place, and simply carried this practice with them to various lands, but then... what does that tell us about this attribute? Cultures, customs, beliefs, all changed, but what remained above and beyond anything else, was the human spiritual connection... spirituality. Important? Not important? What does the rational mind tell us?

Now, superstitions do often find their way into religions, which are manifestations of human spirituality. I don't profess to know a lot about Christianity, but I believe the message brought by Jesus to the followers of Christianity, specifically dispelled a lot of superstitious beliefs which had been incorporated into the Jewish religion. But again, my point is simple, even what you interpret as superstitious, is evidence of human spiritual connection. That's the important detail you need to take away here. Regardless of the validity of beliefs in specific, they all entail a strong human spiritual connection to something. That is a fact that is hard to dispute. "

No, I am not curious as to why mankind universally creates gods. Man need to find a reason for the randomness of life. Why does that one die, and that one live? There must be something that causes us to thrive, while they starve. The planets move in predictable patterns, Therefore, some superior force controls them. All the acncient religions focused on astrology, from the druids to the azteks, to the Egyptions. One must make sense of a random world, in which seemly unfair things happen all the time. That is why almost half the nation still believes the the JFK killing was a conspiracy. Man can not accept that the most powerful man in the world was brought down by a twentysomething year old loser with a $10 rifle.

I used to live in Vegas. I played blackjack a lot, just for entertainment. Everyone in Vegas believes that there are hidden patterns to random events. Even I began to believe after about three years that I would always win on the hand following being delt a natural blackjack, and that I would lose on the hand following a "push". I sat at a table one night where a woman would get out of her chair, and flap her arms and cluck like a chicken, every time she was delt a blackjack, because she believed it was "good luck". The azteks needed a god who would bring them victories over their enemies. They were not about to leave that up to chance, so they created one, and sacraficed victims to him. The superstition stopped being a superstition, and became a religion. Then the preisthood class was formed. They had an inside track, because they could predict the longest day of the year and the shortest day of the year, as well as comets. Obviously, only people who can speak to gods can do this. My grandmother believed that if she had to walk to the bus stop tomorrow, all she had to do was to pray that it would not rain the night before. She eventually got to the state of mind that she did not recall the failures in her prayers, only the sucesses. The same thing is true of gamblers in Vegas. They will tell you about the $6,000 jackpot they won, but fail to remember the $7,000 they lost in the preceeding 2 months.

I am not going to convice you that there is no spirituality, or god, just as I could not convice the Catholic church that the pope is not infalable. The truth is that there are some of us who can live with the randomness and unfairness of life, while most people simply can't handle it, and choose to believe that it is all an ordered universe and that god simply works in mysterious ways.

major bump!

 

[daws101]

So case do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

 

[daws101]

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly working…We see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
Darwin

“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend — though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”- Stephen jay Gould.

 

[Hollie]

You and daws do not have a clue.

Punctuated equilibrium


Definition

noun

A theory that describes an evolutionary change happening rapidly and in brief geological events in between the long periods of stasis (or equilibrium). The theory is based on the stasis in fossil records, and when phenotypic evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation.


grad·u·al·ism

/ˈgrajo͞oəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.A policy of gradual reform rather than sudden change or revolution.
2.The hypothesis that evolution proceeds chiefly by the accumulation of gradual changes (in CONTRAST to the punctuationist model).

Learn your theories so you don't continue to make a fool of yourself. The only thing they have in common is that evolution took a long time.

Now why was the theory of punctuated Equilibrium brought forth ? well because of the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Don't spend any time addressing the fact that Christian creationists do no research, publish no peer review work or perform no field experimentation to counter the fact of evolution.

Here’s a thought. I have a method for testing for the existence of the tooth fairy. The primary asserted effect of the tooth fairy is the exchange of teeth for monetary reward or compensation. This is an event which takes place at a certain place and time and provides directly measurable results. How difficult is it to set up a controlled experiment in which all variables are controlled, access to the room in which a child sleeps with a tooth under their pillow is monitored, all teeth and coins within that room accounted for, and the effect measured with an inventory of both teeth and coins prior to and after following asleep?

Let’s have you propose an analogous test for your gawds.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As expected, those screeching the loudest against the factual data and hard (pun intended) evidence for transitional fossils are the Christian fundies.


But then again, who else but the Christian fundies are loading their posts with "poop". AS their sacred cows are marched into the glaring light of scrutiny, they do tend to get angry, vicious and begin hurling obscenities.

Lovely, lovely folks them-there good xtians.

CC200: Transitional fossils

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.


Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.


Response:
1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Good for you, Hollie-dog. But I am not arguing for YEC or any of its variations.

I am simply pointing out that science is not ever at rest and in stasis. Science is constantly churning, revising and adapting to new evidence...except for dogmatic people like you who always seem to filter what you believe through your secularist lenses first.

Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before Eldredge and Gould alerted their colleagues to the prominence of stasis in the fossil record, most evolutionists considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.[7][19][20] George Gaylord Simpson for example believed that phyletic gradual evolution (called horotely in his terminology) comprised "nine-tenths" (90%) of evolution.[21] Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain the putative causes of stasis. Gould was initially attracted to I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis. However this hypothesis was rejected over time,[22] as evidence accumulated against it.[23] Other plausible mechanisms which have been suggested include: habitat tracking,[24][25] stabilizing selection,[26] the Stenseth-Maynard Smith stability hypothesis,[27] constraints imposed by the nature of subdivided populations,[26] normalizing clade selection,[28] and koinophilia.[29][30]

Evidence for the existence of stasis has also been corroborated from the genetics of sibling species, species which are morphologically indistinguishable, but whose proteins have diverged sufficiently to suggest they have been separated for millions of years.[31] According to Gould "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[32]

Philosopher Kim Sterelny adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process."[33]

The fossil record includes well documented examples of phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution. As such, much debate persist over the prominence of stasis in the fossil record.

ha

ha ha ha : Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

No, it revised gradualism to a point it was not easily recognizable as gradualism.

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

Punctuated gradualism is a microevolutionary hypothesis that refers to a species that has "relative stasis over a considerable part of its total duration [and] underwent periodic, relatively rapid, morphologic change that did not lead to lineage branching". It is one of the three common models of evolution. While the traditional model of paleontology, the phylogenetic model, states that features evolved slowly without any direct association with speciation, the relatively newer and more controversial idea of punctuated equilibrium claims that major evolutionary changes don't happen over a gradual period but in localized, rare, rapid events of branching speciation. Punctuated gradualism is considered to be a variation of these models, lying somewhere in between the phyletic gradualism model and the punctuated equilibrium model. It states that speciation is not needed for a lineage to rapidly evolve from one equilibrium to another but may show rapid transitions between long-stable states.

Yeah, gradualism that is punctuated and not gradual...sure, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

you already been proven wrong by the very men who came up with the theory... The resulting debate stirred up in evolutionary circles was misrepresented by some creationists to portray Darwinism as a "theory in crisis."

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

 

[daws101]

Good for you, Hollie-dog. But I am not arguing for YEC or any of its variations.

I am simply pointing out that science is not ever at rest and in stasis. Science is constantly churning, revising and adapting to new evidence...except for dogmatic people like you who always seem to filter what you believe through your secularist lenses first.

Punctuated Equilibrium:
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



ha

ha ha ha : Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

No, it revised gradualism to a point it was not easily recognizable as gradualism.

Punctuated gradualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Punctuated gradualism is a microevolutionary hypothesis that refers to a species that has "relative stasis over a considerable part of its total duration [and] underwent periodic, relatively rapid, morphologic change that did not lead to lineage branching". It is one of the three common models of evolution. While the traditional model of paleontology, the phylogenetic model, states that features evolved slowly without any direct association with speciation, the relatively newer and more controversial idea of punctuated equilibrium claims that major evolutionary changes don't happen over a gradual period but in localized, rare, rapid events of branching speciation. Punctuated gradualism is considered to be a variation of these models, lying somewhere in between the phyletic gradualism model and the punctuated equilibrium model. It states that speciation is not needed for a lineage to rapidly evolve from one equilibrium to another but may show rapid transitions between long-stable states.

Yeah, gradualism that is punctuated and not gradual...sure, lol.

thanks for confirming what gould said.
even if it was tautological....

 

[Hollie]

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

 

[daws101]

No what happened is they did not want the creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility by being able show divisions in the theory of evolution by evolutionists then they spun what was really going on.

They did the same thing with the terms of Macro and Micro evolution. They had to extrapolate from one to try and show Macro was possible. So how did they handle that ? they said they are one and the same lol. Both terms were brought forth from evolutionists.

If you can't see the manipulation of the powerful in charge over the community you are blind or don't want to see. That is why they attack creationists and Intelligent design folk because if the truth gets out they lose their hold they have over the schools and the government.

This is a fact anyone who opposes the establishment pay through their credibility and financially. What they really hate is the creationist and Intelligent design folk are starting to be funded to fight off the current pseudoscience being taught in schools.

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

the conspiracy spin redux..

 

[daws101]

That is true. The global conspiracy of atheistic evilutionists have managed to prevent creationists and Intelligent design folk gaining credibility. Yes. You have figured it out.

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

 

[Hollie]

There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.

It’s just… uncanny how Christian creationist arguments all seem to derive from the same, seedy corner of fundamentalist ministries.

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.


Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 78.
Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Response:
1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
a. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
b. The transformation is even and slow.
c. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
d. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.

However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.

Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).

It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.

[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).
"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.

3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.

4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

 

[Hollie]

Yeah establishment scientists have Lysenkoed science in the 21st century and now criticisms of Anthropocentric Global Warming, LENR fusion theory, revisions of evolutionary theory that doesn't worship at the feet of Darwin, etc, all demonstrate the institutional grip the current syndicate of state sponsored science has wrought.

We should defund ALL science research coming from government coffers and let these bastards make their cases to the general public and beg for funding.

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

It's been replaced with the more intellectual likes of ywc by way of:

"Fuck dumbshit you didn't even understand the difference in punctuated equilibrium and Gradualism."

He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate and earned his PHD there. Although, his PHD was not the doctoral degree (Ph.D) we're accustomed to.

Harun Yahya graduates folks such as ywc with a "PHD", Post Hole Digger.

They're on sale and home and garden centers.

 

[edthecynic]

You have not proven a thing I have said to be wrong.(because I say so) IF ANY OF YOU had done so, you would be posting it in every post, so that everyone could see it for themselves. You've not proven I am a "fraud"(because I say so) whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean. These are your OPINIONS,(because I say so) and it's kind of important for you to know, that not everyone shares YOUR opinion.(because I say so) Because it happens to be an opinion possessed by your brain, doesn't mean it is an empirical and unassailable truth, and fact of life.(because I say so) I did present evidence,(because I say so) I did make my case,(because I say so) it's all in the OP argument,(because I say so) and anyone is free to go read it for themselves.(because I say so) You have yet to counter my argument,(because I say so) and in fact, continue to reaffirm the first point of the argument, that some people refuse to accept spiritual evidence(because I say so).

 

[Youwerecreated]

So case do you believe in punctuated equilibrium or gradualism ?

Gould himself later said that the theory did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism, but just added the ideas of catastrophism and stasis.

punctuated equilibrium IS an addition TO not separate from Darwin's gradualism.
your failed attempt at creating a false difference between the two is indicative of your delusion...and a fine example of why you earned the nickname slapdick.

Why do you think gould recanted his own words ? You are not bright enough to understand the contradiction lol.

I could think of a few nicknames for you but then I would be stooping to your level and won't do it anymore. I just need to consider the source.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, through out the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and invisibly working…We see nothing of theses slow changes in progress until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages."-
Darwin

“Nonetheless, the claim that evolution must be too slow to see can only rank as an urban legend — though not a completely harmless tale in this case, for our creationists incubi can then use the fallacy as an argument against evolution at any scale, and many folks take them seriously because they just ‘know’ that evolution can never be seen in the immediate here and now. In fact, a completely opposite situation actually prevails: biologists have documented a veritable glut of cases for rapid and eminently measurable evolution on timescales of years and decades.”- Stephen jay Gould.

So explain these new traits. Where do they come from ? How do they become fixated in the population ? How is it that natural selection removes bad traits but leaves behind good traits ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

There were no continuous smooth change in the fossil record. He may have gotten high and mighty after the fact but he let the cat out of the bag thank you gould.

It’s just… uncanny how Christian creationist arguments all seem to derive from the same, seedy corner of fundamentalist ministries.

CC201: Phyletic gradualism

Claim CC201:
If evolution proceeds via the accumulation of small steps, we should see a smooth continuum of creatures across the fossil record. Instead, we see long periods where species do not change, and there are gaps between the changes.


Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pg. 78.
Johnson, Phillip E., 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22, Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip


Response:
1. The idea that gradual change should appear throughout the fossil record is called phyletic gradualism. It is based on the following tenets:
a. New species arise by the transformation of an ancestral population into its modified descendants.
b. The transformation is even and slow.
c. The transformation involves most or all of the ancestral population.
d. The transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range.

However, all but the first of these is false far more often that not. Studies of modern populations and incipient species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area. The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly. Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region.

Once species are well adapted to an environment, selective pressures tend to keep them that way. A change in the environment that alters the selective pressure would then end the "stasis" (or lead to extinction).

It should be noted that even Darwin did not expect the rate of evolutionary change to be constant.

[N]atural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification (Darwin 1872, 152).

It is a more important consideration . . . that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10).
"it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world (Darwin 1872, 433).

2. The imperfection of the fossil record (due to erosion and periods unfavorable to fossil preservation) also causes gaps, although it probably cannot account for all of them.

3. Some transitional sequences exist, which, despite an uneven rate of change, still show a gradual continuum of forms.

4. The fossil record still shows a great deal of change over time. The creationists who make note of the many gaps almost never admit the logical conclusion: If they are due to creation, then there have been hundreds, perhaps even millions, of separate creation events scattered through time.

So are you agreeing with gould ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

It's been replaced with the more intellectual likes of ywc by way of:

"Fuck dumbshit you didn't even understand the difference in punctuated equilibrium and Gradualism."

He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate and earned his PHD there. Although, his PHD was not the doctoral degree (Ph.D) we're accustomed to.

Harun Yahya graduates folks such as ywc with a "PHD", Post Hole Digger.

They're on sale and home and garden centers.

Should I start quizzing you like daws to see if you can handle my so called Harun Yahya degree ?

I liked how he stumbled all over himself.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Such are the wages of Christian fundamentalism and the Flat Earth crowd.

whatever happened to the good old christian values of admitting you're wrong and taking responsibility .....?

It's been replaced with the more intellectual likes of ywc by way of:

"Fuck dumbshit you didn't even understand the difference in punctuated equilibrium and Gradualism."

He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate and earned his PHD there. Although, his PHD was not the doctoral degree (Ph.D) we're accustomed to.

Harun Yahya graduates folks such as ywc with a "PHD", Post Hole Digger.

They're on sale and home and garden centers.

This is for both you and daws.

Do you understand the strict limits of variation ?

Selective breeding is done to get the most milk from cows, more sugar from beets, or any other characteristic when the strict limit is reached, what happens to that genetic line ?

 

[Boss]

Spiritual belief is NOT proof that an invisible deity exists. I and others could feasibly believe with absolute certainty that there is a large city of sasquatches on the other side of Pluto, which we cannot see, but that doesn't make what we believe in any more real.
To date there is no more evidence for the existence of a single deity than there was for Odin, Zeus, or Ra. Prayers work no better if you believe in a single invisible deity than if you pray to the ancient ones.
I had to laugh at a religious coworker who once came in to work saying that he prayed to god for a parking place and when he got to work, found one. This of course, convinced him that prayer works.
I asked, "so you believe that your prayer was more important than the prayers of tens of thousands in foreign lands who pray for food but starve to death?" His response was, "yes." Stupidity and arrogance know no bounds.

First of all, try to comprehend, the OP argument says nothing about a "deity" of any kind. God is used as a metaphoric representation of whatever humans spiritually connect to. Next, think about the wind... it's there, you can feel it there, you can see the effects of it, but you can't see it. Of course, this is where Dorito pops in to interject how we can "see" wind with special machines we built to do that and stuff, but you get the point, right? Some things aren't visible to the naked eye, so is the case with spiritual nature, and it also can't be touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. It's still there. We can't see a thought... again, Dorito will challenge that we can use a special machine to see at thought happening, but before we created a machine, we couldn't physically confirm thoughts existed. Who's to say, we won't one day have a machine that "sees" spiritual nature?

Prayers DO work, if they didn't, people wouldn't bother praying. Now you present an example comparing a prayer for a parking space to people who are starving to death. But your viewpoint is prejudiced by your humanism. Because you are a spiritual human being, you have compassion for other humans and living things, you don't want to see suffering, and it makes no sense to you how any "god" could allow such a thing to happen without answering their prayers. The thing is, if God intervened to right all injustices, and rid us from all suffering and anguish, would we have any concept of those things? If God eliminated all bad, how would we interpret good and bad? Good and less good? The spiritual nature doesn't have humanistic attributes, it doesn't have compassion like spiritual humans, that's a human attribute we're given by the Creator, through our spiritual connection. Perhaps God is weighing on your heart, since you thought about these starving people, and expects you to do something to help? God gave you a conscience, compassion, the ability to see that people are suffering and the ability to do something about that. Instead, you choose to sit here and mock God, make fun of people who believe in God, and pretend that the starving people are God's responsibility, even though you don't believe God exists.