Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BTW,
How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?
That makes no sense at all.
I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.
You are quoting Gould out of context. Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution. Too bad he's not alive to refute your out of context quotes.
There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves.
When complex life first began to evolve, ecological niches were empty. That explains why life first evolved into such disparate forms so rapidly. There was no competition.
Later, those ecological niches became filled with established species, making it more difficult for disparate forms to successfully become established. This explains why few new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian. The ecological niches have already been filled with established phyla.
Gould probably wrote this explanation somewhere in his book. You probably didn't read his book and are quoting rhetorical questions that he then answered.
1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."
What is it you have....ADD?
That's exactly what the OP says...
"One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position,
2. "You are quoting Gould out of context."
This seems to be the prepared fib from your side.
And...it reveals your ignorance of Gould's work.
OK....I'll teach you: Gould admitted that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution. His fix was the Marxian view of punctuated equilibrium....species popped up all at once, without a trail in the fossil record.
That is why some others have called Gould an 'accidental creationist'...
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
3. "There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves."
The only thing that is simple....is you.
The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?
Don't understand....no sudden macroevolved organisms could survive!!!
Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.
Let's be honest.....you are clueless.
I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.
I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.
They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf
It depends on the environmental circumstances.
Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads.
BTW,
How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?
That makes no sense at all.
I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.
If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.
In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change
MacDonald, Kevin, The Culture of Critique
I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]
1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."
What is it you have....ADD?
That's exactly what the OP says...
"One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position,
2. "You are quoting Gould out of context."
This seems to be the prepared fib from your side.
And...it reveals your ignorance of Gould's work.
OK....I'll teach you: Gould admitted that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution. His fix was the Marxian view of punctuated equilibrium....species popped up all at once, without a trail in the fossil record.
That is why some others have called Gould an 'accidental creationist'...
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
3. "There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves."
The only thing that is simple....is you.
The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?
Don't understand....no sudden macroevolved organisms could survive!!!
Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.
Let's be honest.....you are clueless.
I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.
I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.
They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf
It depends on the environmental circumstances.
Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads.
Debunked???
You have merely proven your stupidity.
BTW,
How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?
That makes no sense at all.
I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.
If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.
In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change
MacDonald, Kevin, The Culture of Critique
I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]
1 "Gould was a strong proponent of Evolution."
What is it you have....ADD?
That's exactly what the OP says...
"One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position,
2. "You are quoting Gould out of context."
This seems to be the prepared fib from your side.
And...it reveals your ignorance of Gould's work.
OK....I'll teach you: Gould admitted that Darwin was wrong about gradual evolution. His fix was the Marxian view of punctuated equilibrium....species popped up all at once, without a trail in the fossil record.
That is why some others have called Gould an 'accidental creationist'...
"THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST"
NONZERO
3. "There's actually a quite simple explanation for the Cambrian explosion which is what the Burgess Shale preserves."
The only thing that is simple....is you.
The name "Cambrian explosion" became common coin, because Walcott's site proved the geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as found in even the barroom scene of Star Wars.
How, then, does this fit with Darwin's theory of gradual change which would be indicated by innumerable false starts and biological dead ends, indicating failures of random alterations?
Don't understand....no sudden macroevolved organisms could survive!!!
Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.
Let's be honest.....you are clueless.
I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.
I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.
They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf
It depends on the environmental circumstances.
Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads.
Debunked???
You have merely proven your stupidity.
I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.
I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.
They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf
It depends on the environmental circumstances.
Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads.
Debunked???
You have merely proven your stupidity.
Yep...debunked.
You didn't even respond to my explanation.
You merely called me stupid.
Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.
BTW,
How is punctuated equilibrium Marxist?
That makes no sense at all.
I'm curious what your explanation for this nonsense is.
If you don't know the answer to that.....then I was accurate in claiming you to be clueless....and makes you look like quite the fool in denying Gould was a Marxist.
In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change
MacDonald, Kevin, The Culture of Critique
I ripped you pretty well in this OP:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEQCUgOxShc]BaZing! - YouTube[/ame]
An out of context quote is not an explanation.
I want you, in your own words, to explain how the Evolutionary Model of Punctuated Equilibrium is some how Marxist.
Debunked???
You have merely proven your stupidity.
Yep...debunked.
You didn't even respond to my explanation.
You merely called me stupid.
Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.
But you are stupid.....you don't understand what you've attempted to post about....Marxism as the basis for punctuated equilibrium.
And post #23 does answer the query.....
.....and you shutting your eyes really tight and covering your ears doesn't change the fact.
Further....I quoted you extensively in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html
...and ripped you up there, as well.
Yep...debunked.
You didn't even respond to my explanation.
You merely called me stupid.
Calling me stupid didn't advance your claim.
But you are stupid.....you don't understand what you've attempted to post about....Marxism as the basis for punctuated equilibrium.
And post #23 does answer the query.....
.....and you shutting your eyes really tight and covering your ears doesn't change the fact.
Further....I quoted you extensively in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/326936-a-fight-to-the-death.html
...and ripped you up there, as well.
I don't see any explanation in your words on post #23.
If this were a homework assignment, you would get a zero for that post.
One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.
It's all about faith.
More stupidity from the Ann Coulter wanna-be, demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and what research is.
I just love how the real dopes throw around terms they've heard, but don't understand....
...that would be you, posting 'scientific method.'
Threre has been zero...like your IQ....testing that resulted in the formation of a new species such as Darwin posited in his theory.
David Berlinski states:
There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels on ball bearing.
"In a research survey published in 2001, the evolutionary biologist Joel Kingsolver reported that in sample sizes of more than one thousand individuals, there was virtually no correlation between specific biological traits and either reproductive success or survival. Important issues about selection, he remarked with some understatement, remain unresolved.
What these experiments do reveal is a principle far more penetrating than any that Darwin ever offered:
There is a sucker born every minute."
Get it, you imbecile?
PoliticalChic is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and BRAINWASHED Religious Nut.One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.
One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position.. .
And THAT is the DISHONESTY we see from PoliticalChic Daily, presenting::: "little more than a rhetorical Supposed Contradiction"Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.
In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.
Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
`"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to Falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]
PoliticalChic is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and BRAINWASHED Religious Nut.One can certainly believe in Darwin's theory.....but it should be admitted that said belief is of the same variety as any other religious belief: it is based on faith rather than evidence.
One of my pals said 'You must realize that Gould is an avid proponent if evolution'.....
Of course I do. That's why I provide Gould's words.....they support my position.. .
She has seen this post many times before but still LIES.
And THAT is the DISHONESTY we see from PoliticalChic Daily, presenting::: "little more than a rhetorical Supposed Contradiction"Let's be clear PoliticalChic..
You are DISHONESTLY using Out of context quote snippets to make False claim.
Further, you got them from some Unsourced website/Plagiarized their use for that purpose. Quotes can be Generic but NOT when used in a specific way/gathering/order/etc.
You are Unable to discuss anything in your own words: in Every post goofily using then same disingenuous uncontexted quotes. You are NOT conversant on evolution at all.
In any Case, RIP PoliticalChic BS.
Evolution as Fact and Theory
by Stephen Jay Gould
StephenJayGould.org
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994
`"...The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed Kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.
First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice.
Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."
In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of sciencethat is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theorynatural selectionto explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
[.......]
Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.
Creationists Pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
[......]
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting Supposed Contradictions among its supporters.
[......]
She's a Refugee from Sanity and Honesty.
A Deceiver 'for' God.
An Immoral Intentional LIAR who posts Gould as "supporting" her.
`
So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?
I presume you have one?
What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.
What DO you believe?
So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?
I presume you have one?
What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.
What DO you believe?
Judging by the font....you really get exercised about the question..........
....now, calm down.
So, editec....do you agree that the fact that the most famous neo-Darwinist, namely Stephen J. Gould, produced a theory that ran counter to Darwin's....the very opposite, in fact....
...he stated that species pop up, fully formed and totally different from earlier species....
...put the stake through the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory?
I presume you have an opinion as to which is correct.
What DO you believe?
So, PC.... what is YOUR theory about life on this planet?
I presume you have one?
What we know for sure is that you eschew the Darwinist theory.
What DO you believe?
Judging by the font....you really get exercised about the question..........
....now, calm down.
So, editec....do you agree that the fact that the most famous neo-Darwinist, namely Stephen J. Gould, produced a theory that ran counter to Darwin's....the very opposite, in fact....
...he stated that species pop up, fully formed and totally different from earlier species....
...put the stake through the heart of Darwinian evolutionary theory?
I presume you have an opinion as to which is correct.
What DO you believe?
Still ignoring the below explanation, I see.
I subscribed to Natural History magazine for 6 years. Gould had a monthly column. I read over 70 of his columns.
I'm well aware of his theory of punctuated equilibrium.
The Theory of Evolution is broad enough that it can accept both types of evolution.
Darwin was not wrong. Some evolution is gradual. And Gould is not wrong. Some evolution is sudden.
They are both valid models. http://www.sersc.org/journals/IJBSBT/vol3_no4/3.pdf
It depends on the environmental circumstances.
Hence, I have just debunked another one of your threads
In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change
MacDonald, Kevin, The Culture of Critique
