[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

His rhetorical questions prior to any real hominid finds do not accurately reflect the abundance of the fossils we have now, nor do they negate his theory.

His questions were more than rhetorical. Darwin's characterization of the fossil record was essentially a vast continuum of micro changes over vast periods of time. Not sudden jumps followed by long periods stasis as described by Gould and Eldredge.

Darwin and the fossil hunters who followed believed they would prove the "continuum". They failed.

[VadeRetro]

Darwin's characterization of the fossil record was essentially a vast continuum of micro changes over vast periods of time.

Again, you are wrong. Just flat wrong. Please buy a clue.

[Coyoteman]

His rhetorical questions prior to any real hominid finds do not accurately reflect the abundance of the fossils we have now, nor do they negate his theory.

His questions were more than rhetorical. Darwin's characterization of the fossil record was essentially a vast continuum of micro changes over vast periods of time. Not sudden jumps followed by long periods stasis as described by Gould and Eldredge.

Darwin and the fossil hunters who followed believed they would prove the "continuum". They failed.

Didn't the idea of punctuated equilibrium go back to Darwin? I seem to recall that from one of these threads.

But even so, lets pretend Darwin never heard of PE and his theory was corrected by Gould and Eldredge. What would this matter to evolution? Science progresses by modifying theories as needed. Are you suggesting that if Darwin was wrong about one little thing that all of evolution just goes away?

(For the overall dispute between creation and evolution, the fine-tuning of the mechanism of evolution is not relevant. If anything, the theory will get stronger for the challenge.)

Now, I gotta get some work done. Bye.