Why Darwin?

[PoliticalChic]

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

 

[Dot Com]

Another ridiculous and failed thread from the OP.

Pathetic.

that about sums it up. Thats our PoliticalSpice C_Clayton_Jones

 

[rdean]

that's funny.

the answer: darwin because it's science, unlike religious fanatics.

And, considering all the evidence, it's the ONLY thing that fits.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

I know right?

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

 

[Dot Com]

Are you admitting that your personal belief in the origin and development of life on Earth has nothing to do with any sort of God?

Seriously? You're admitting you're atheist? lol, shocker!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well OP?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread has nothing to do with God......unless you're one of the morons who thinks Darwin is God.

Darwin was an actual human being that existed in reality.

God is superstition.

Just like your creationism and its creator.

I'm gonna assume two things:

1. the fact that you have to make things up that are not a part of the thread indicates that I am correct and you know that.

2. you are an imbecile....almost, but not quite, complete.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution.

Once again we see those hostile to the fact of evolution making their fundamental mistake: incorrectly perceiving the earth to be immutable and static, where in the context of such an errant perception evolution would be difficult to understand.

But the earth is not immutable and static, it's constantly changing, as it has for more than four billion years; and as the earth changes so must life change and adapt – indeed, had life not possessed the ability to adapt, evolve, and change in response to the earth changing, life on this planet would have been extinguished long ago.

"'Creationism' is religion, subjective and irrelevant, having no bearing whatsoever concerning the science that is evolution."

I never mentioned creationism.

NYLiar did.

So you reject creationism as the better alternative explanation to evolution.

I never mentioned creationism.

You did.

My posts are strictly related to science.

Then the point of your thread is what?

In your own words, briefly...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Darwin was an actual human being that existed in reality.

God is superstition.

Just like your creationism and its creator.

I'm gonna assume two things:

1. the fact that you have to make things up that are not a part of the thread indicates that I am correct and you know that.

2. you are an imbecile....almost, but not quite, complete.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

 

[irosie91]

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm gonna assume two things:

1. the fact that you have to make things up that are not a part of the thread indicates that I am correct and you know that.

2. you are an imbecile....almost, but not quite, complete.

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context.

btw, you left this out of your Gould bio:

According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[10]

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   
   
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is in this thread is your belief that species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth.

Tell us how that would manifest itself?

For example, would it resemble the transporter phenomenom so integral to the stories in Star Trek?

Would there be that sparkly thing going on as the beast materialized? Or was there a puff of smoke,

the magician's stock in trade.

I'm sure I'm not the only one in this thread who would like to hear your personal description of the details of your belief.

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

All he does is make the case for rapid evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This guy said it:

"Stephen Jay Gould (/ɡuːld/; September 10, 1941 – May 20, 2002) was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.[1] Gould spent most of his career teaching at Harvard University and working at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the later years of his life, Gould also taught biology and evolution at New York University.

Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium,...."
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....species appeared suddenly, fully formed, on the Earth."
That's what he said.

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context.

btw, you left this out of your Gould bio:

According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[10]

lol

1. "No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context."
A lie.

2. "btw, you left this out of your Gould bio
Another sort of lie.....I left nothing out that had to do with Darwin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

read again-------I, correctly, used the word "abrupt" to
refer to a "speciation" faster than usual ----ie not in the
same very gradual process involving an aggregation of single base pair mutations that are not lethal and lead to very gradual, NON LETHAL, alterations in genotype and phenotype. -----but instead a WHOLE BUNCH OF MUTATIONS suddenly (as might happen on exposure to an unusual amount of radiation) which contrary to the usual scenario SURVIVES. Of course most "whole bunch of mutations" would be lethal-----but it could happen out of MANY such events that a few might survive and reproduce I just presented a possible theory for abrupt speciation-----try to cope. That Darwin did not consider such a possibility does not invalidate his ENTIRE theory. (sheeeeh----they're doing the same thing to Freud----trying to knock him
completely apart by screwing ((pardon the pun)) with
every detail of his stuff)

Nonsense.

You really don't understand the subject, do you.


1. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. There should have been myriad combinations of organisms...which would appear in the fossil record.
They don't.

a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.." Macromutations evolution Frozen Evolution. Or that s not the way it is Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.

b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. "
http://www.richardcfrancis.com/2012/06/10/genetic-dark-matter-part-2/

2. But given huge amounts of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence? Sure. But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....and
b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death. "It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out." Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.


Who says so?

3. "THE ABRUPTmanner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302

Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes. <<< here is where you go wrong------
you are assuming every mutation of a large number
of base pairs is LETHAL--------or makes an organism
that cannot reproduce------you may be wrong. Rather than the usual slow ----one at a time base pair mutation
-----over long periods of time preducing speciation by
aggregation of mutations-----RARELY a bit bang
mutation might survive and reproduce making a
new species -----seemingly SUDDENLY

1. The huge majority are lethal....and every macromutation is.
2. Twice I've explained to you even if any such mutations on the road to speciation produced replications that could continue toward a new species......

.....they would be found in the fossil record.


They are not.

Pick up a book on the Cambrian Explosion.

"The Cambrian explosion, or less commonly Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared, as indicated by the fossil record."

1. Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia View attachment 41637
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
   Wikipedia

And yet you offer no plausible explanation as to how they appeared, other than by evolution.

Your own quote calls it a 'relatively short evolutionary event'.

 

[Tuatara]

She believes species appeared fully formed, but cannot for the life of her offer a plausible scientifically sound explanation as to how that would happen.

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information. Your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, he's wrong. There is no scientifically plausible scenario in which a previously non-existent cow could suddenly materialize in a pasture.

If there is such a scenario, please, in your own words, describe it:

1. Describe how it would occur.
2. Describe what would cause it to occur.

I'm still laughing over your post about Stephen Gould, "he's wrong!"

I love it!


14. "Stephen Jay Gould was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation"
Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Then there's you: one of the least influential and most widely recognized as a congenital liar!
"Well, he's wrong."
Priceless!

And, just to rub it in, Gould, atheist, Marxist, neo-Darwinist, is a witness for the prosecution....me....as he stated that Darwin was wrong:


a. . In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)




15. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


Exactly as I posted throughout.

Exactly.

Then show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed.

Oh....man....the funniest.

First of all, you prove what a dunce you are....Gould 'he's wrong!!!!'


Second.....you double down on ignorance!!!!


I love it.



..."show us where Gould proves that species can appear out of nowhere, fully formed."

"US"??//

You mean you have a whole gang of imbeciles with you?
Your gang meets in a phone booth?


Gould.....he doesn't 'prove it'.....he admits it.
It was proven at the Burgess Shale, and by the Chengjiang fauna, ......

Here ya' go.....again:

"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182.).'" (Gould, Stephen J.The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)



Pleeeeeeezzzee.....one more time: "He's wronnnnnnnggggggg!"

Do you realize that you fit in a discussion of Darwin like...... a Pork BBQ pit in Mecca.

No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context.

btw, you left this out of your Gould bio:

According to Gould the most influential political books he read were C. Wright Mills' The Power Elite and the political writings of Noam Chomsky.[10]

lol

1. "No, he doesn't. You misread his quote in context."
A lie.

2. "btw, you left this out of your Gould bio
Another sort of lie.....I left nothing out that had to do with Darwin.

You left out his endorsement of Darwinism as the basic platform for the theory of evolution, such as in this:

"Here sociobiology has had and will continue to have success. And here I wish it well. For it represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply."[35]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

"She believes species appeared fully formed,..."

A lie.

I never stated what I believe....I proved that scientists " believe species appeared fully formed,..."

no they haven't They demonstrated evidence of ABRUPT and DRAMATIC skips and jumps in evolution. ----ie a big alteration in phenotype----
as a result of a big alteration of genotype----that survived. The overwhelming majority of mutations
are lethal-----the more massive the mutation ----the
more lethal. ------rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere

Pleeeeezzzze.....am I gonna have to prove you're a fool????

1. First.....a vocabulary lesson-
Abrupt: a: characterized by or involving action or change without preparation or warning :unexpected<came to an abrupt stop><an abrupt turn><anabrupt decision to retire
Abrupt Definition of abrupt by Merriam-Webster


2. ":Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process."
Gradual Change Vs. Punctuated Equilibrium The Study of Change Over Time Evolution 101 University of Vermont


3. "Sudden appearance.In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"6.5 Stephen Jay Gould and


4. Your understanding of mutation is tenuous at best.
The mutation does not allow for reproduction if it is harmful....the initiate dies.
Your statement "-rarely a very significant mutation
survives and thus A NEW SPECIES seems to come
out of nowhere.."

....is absurd. If the evidence is not there because the recipient of the mutation died, it died before it could pass on genes.


This is like trying to play chess with three year olds.
I'm the only one in this thread who understands science.

Ever hear of quote mining. which you have done many times before. A very dishonest tatic.

Quote Mine Project Sudden Appearance andStasis
Quote Mine Project Gould Eldredge and PunctuatedEquilibria Quotes

"Quote mining" is the pretend defense by morons like you who cannot defeat the argument.

Every quote I provide is correct and accurate....and, why you hate.....proves my point.

No, because you dishonestly took the quote out of context or ommitted paramount information your attempt at your argument is slanderous. What you are doing is exactly what creationists do. In fact the exact body of work you submitted can be found on numerous creationist sites. What you are doing is deliberate fraud and deceit.

She will neither confirm nor deny she's a Creationist, which is an additional aspect of her odious character.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep it up, slow-boy......here's Gould's partner supporting what I've said:

“He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search….It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.” (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

What is your obsession with proving Darwin imperfect? The orginal Constitution was imperfect. What does that prove?