Evolution is a fact, as evidenced by the overwhelming fossil record. The Theory of Evolution is a theory of how evolution happens.
Absolutely ROFL! The fossil record? You are either mis-informed or attempting to mislead. Since you believe in Stephen Jay Gould, here's his take on it.
"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. 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.'"
(Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
Next falsehood, please?
Uh, so? "Phyletic gradualism" is ONE mode of evolutionary change. It's not the only one. Besides, note the Gould said "MOST fossil species". Gould acknowledged that there WERE good examples in the fossil record of gradualism. He just didn't think is was the usual case.
Absolutely ROFL! The fossil record?
Yes, among many other overwhelmingly vast independently cross-confirming lines of evidence.
You are either mis-informed or attempting to mislead.
A classic case of psychological projection. His statement is entirely correct, your "rebuttal" is either dishonest and/or ignorantly misinformed.
Since you believe in Stephen Jay Gould, here's his take on it. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. 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.'" (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, May 1977, p.14).
None of this contradicts the statement. I'm sorry you either didn't understand it, or are dishonestly attempting to present it in a way that misleads the reader into thinking that Gould might have disagreed with MRMEAN's statement, when in fact he most emphatically *agreed* with it, as anyone knows who has bothered to read even a small portion of Gould's writings on this subject. Lie much?
Here's what Gould himself had to say about people like you who misused his words to try to make it appear that he held a position opposite his actual position:
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally [but not entirely -- Ich.] lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
-- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
Gould quite clearly acknowledges that the fossil record supports the fact of evolutionary change (via the "abundant" transitional fossil forms found between taxa higher than the species level), and he has repeated this conclusion countless times throughout his large body of work.
So why are you lying about it? Oh, right, because you're an anti-evolution creationist. Lying seems to be some sort of requirement.
Next falsehood, please?
I don't know, what *will* your next falsehood be? We'll just have to wait until you post it.