The article was about the fossil record and Darwin. That's why we are "picking" on Darwin.
My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego.
Have you read:
Posted on 07/22/2006 5:35:21 AM PDT by DouglasKC
"Take Gould for instance. He looked at the fossil record and saw that it didn't conform to Darwin's continuum theory."
Darwin's theory is discrete in nature.
"So he went public and was dismayed that the "fundamentalist" were using his quotes against Darwin."
Because the creationists shamelessly lied by cutting and pasting his words to try to make them mean the opposite of what they really meant. All in the name of the God they claim to follow.
Thanks for the info. It adds plenty and it is just what I want. I am trying to filter out agenda driven crap, lies and bromides from this topic. Thanks again.
And what's it doing in News/Activism? No news here. It must be an 'activism' post.
The mods have been using a light touch lately. Perhaps they're just overworked.
However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions.
He did? And he still wrote and published his book? Perhaps he should have been more forceful in describing his 'struggle'.
Yup, as the bible points out:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
This is the kind of evolution evolutionists should be passionate about.
Because PE better fits the fossil record. Of that I have no doubt. To many, Darwin's claim of what is essentially a continuum was not a "little thing". Gould and Eldredge obviously didn't think so.
I don't like dishonest science. If Gould and Eldredge were correct, then say so. Stop looking over your shoulders at what the "fundies" may think. In the long run it's a winner for science.
The astronomers did a better job handling the transition from the "Steady State" theory to the "Big Bang Theory" despite its Biblical implications, and the fundies ran wild with it. But so what?
Science must forge ahead with the scientific method regardless.
As the saying goes "damn the torpedos and full speed ahead".
This is the kind of evolution evolutionists should be passionate about.
Care to translate/interpret this? Was the writer disputing the TOE when he wrote it? I couldn't find anything disputing the TEO in it, so what point were you were trying to make?
General/Chat now, where it belongs.
These things take time.
Darwin theory envisaged gradual small changes over eons. i.e. Not discrete.
"Darwin theory envisaged gradual small changes over eons. i.e. Not discrete."
Gradual is not an antonym of discrete. Gould's theory is also gradual and discrete.
I don't understand your question, but my point in making the statement "This is the kind of evolution evolutionists should be passionate about" was that they most evo's seem to be against the notion that God created man and are more intent on finding a naturalistic explanation.
I don't like dishonest science. If Gould and Eldredge were correct, then say so. Stop looking over your shoulders at what the "fundies" may think. In the long run it's a winner for science.
I don't like dishonest science, or anything else dishonest, for that matter.
Let's take a look at this. Here is a good on-line resource [excerpted; follow the link for the rest]:
All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost) Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:
Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis
of Punctuated EquilibriumCopyright © 2001-2003 by Douglas Theobald. Source.
- There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
- Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
- PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
- PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
- Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).
I will not attempt to give an overview of PE here. For background concerning the details of the PE hypothesis I refer you to the first two major PE papers (Eldredge and Gould 1972; Gould and Eldredge 1977) and to Wesley Elsberry's online PE FAQ.
This confirms my memory that Darwin allowed for PE in his original theory.
OK, the shoe is on the other foot. Damnation of Darwin for missing PE is incorrect. He was wise enough to know what he didn't know, and his overall theory has managed to survive remarkably intact for 150 years.
I still think that any evaluation of evolutionary theory should not waste time demonizing Darwin, but should focus on modern practitioners, such as Johanson and White, and the geneticists and radiometric specialists. There is a lot going on out there, but Darwin has not published in over a century. He is clearly behind the times.
The article was about the fossil record and Darwin. That's why we are "picking" on Darwin.
My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego.
Have you read:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.