Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: connectthedots
So, do you believe in punctuated equilibrium, and do you think it happens from one generation to the next or does it occur over long periods of time?

This question reveals a truly massive ignorance of punctuated equilibrium. Knowing that you have been on these threads something like as long as I have, it's hard to believe you are still innocently pig-ignorant.

Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.

565 posted on 10/06/2005 7:40:40 AM PDT by VadeRetro (general_re RIP WTF???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro

Based on years of observation (here and other places), I don't find it hard to believe.


569 posted on 10/06/2005 8:00:11 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
This question reveals a truly massive ignorance of punctuated equilibrium. Knowing that you have been on these threads something like as long as I have, it's hard to believe you are still innocently pig-ignorant.

Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.

I know punk-eek claims that that there are periods of time where evolution occurs at a faster pace than gradualism.

I am also aware that punk-eek is an unfounded claim in an attempt to explain away the lack of a fossil record of 'transitional forms.

I am further aware that some evolutionists believe that new species evolve through divergence and yet other claim that interbreeding leads to new species.

The problem for the evolutionist is that at some point in this process, the parents of one species have to give birth to offspring that is a different species. Certainly you can agree that an animal canot change from one species to another after it is born, can't you? Not only that, but there has to be both a male and a female of this new species born at the same relative time, survive to adulthood, find each other and then successfully mate.

Based on the current usage of punk-eek by evolutionists, it is hardly distinguishable from gradualism, is it?

So, do you believe in gradualism, punk-eek; or both? If both, what triggers the punk-eek periods?

With so little evidence of speciation, how does the evolutionists go even further explain transitions from one classification/family of animals to another? Every example the evolutionists trots out as a possible example of speciation are among very small animals and only very minor differences, that even if they were real, fall within natural selection.

577 posted on 10/06/2005 10:21:03 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro; connectthedots
Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.

the Technical term for significant change in one or very few generations is saltation. The common term is the hopeful monster.

Both concepts were defenestrated a hundred years ago. Punk-eek, as you mention is a slow but irregular process. It is obvious from plant and animal breeding that large changes in form do not always take millions of years. There is no problem with varying rates of change.

599 posted on 10/06/2005 5:20:59 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson