Like the millions of fossils in the fossil record which aren't there? The fossil record demonstrates stasis. Period.
And, moreover, some things in nature make so sense as design, if you assume the designer is rational and sane, such as the vagus nerve in a giraffe (hell, or the number of neck vertebrae) or the panda's "thumb" (or the human back or external testicles, etc., etc.,...). There are no good reasons for them (and many problems with them) to be that way someone with unlimited creative power.
And you know how God should have designed the world? Creation is not necessary. God is sufficient unto Himself. Creation, in all its beauty, variety and idiosyncracies, serves to reflect His glory.
No "leaps" greater than obtainable by the speed achievable by the various forms of speciation is necessary.
Circular. Your problem throughout is that you're assuming your conclusion.
That is one of the reasons why I think the Eldridge-Gould paper on the effect of morphological stasis and allopatric speciation on the fossil record is fundamentally correct, and why I think the theories pressing continuous gradualism are not.
So this is the obviously correct evolutionary theory? Are the scientists who advocate gradualism truly scientists, and/or idiots? Or does that label only apply to people who believe what is truly obvious, that God designed the world?
You are either lying knowingly or making a statement for which you don't know the facts, but which you nevertheless stating as a fact. Since it is not true that the fossil record demonstrates only stasis, I don't know whether this is an innocent mistake or whether you are another in the long line of liars for Christ.
And you know how God should have designed the world? Creation is not necessary. God is sufficient unto Himself. Creation, in all its beauty, variety and idiosyncracies, serves to reflect His glory.
No, I am saying that if you believe that this was intended by your God, then your God has the mentality of a slow ten-year old child. The world's biology is filled with mostly ad-hoc solutions, which make no sense to any rational thinker, but which make perfect sense as the contingent result of evolutionary history. (Your god must LOVE evolution, because the world is teeming with evidence for it, and is devoid of any evidence against it...)
Circular. Your problem throughout is that you're assuming your conclusion.
You are a theistic creationist, and you call anyone else's reason circular??? (And, my assertion isn't circular, the conclusion is well supported by the evidence, as the speed evolution can attain and the amount of change necessary for evolutionary change can be determined by science.)
So this is the obviously correct evolutionary theory?
Not necessarily, that's why I said it is "fundamentally" correct. For what it is attempting to show, it is, I believe, fundamentally correct.
Are the scientists who advocate gradualism truly scientists, and/or idiots?
Scientists. Their ideas are just wrong.
Or does that label only apply to people who believe what is truly obvious, that God designed the world?
No, some people who claim this are just brainwashed. Some are ignorant, some stupid, some cultured with the belief and never questioned it, some are insane, and some are so terrified at the reality of death that they'd cling to anything--even in the face of evidence the belief is untrue--so as not to have to contemplate their own nonexistence.