Of course they don't exist.
How can evolutionists claim their 'theory' is a fact when they can't even decide if change was gradual or sudden?
This article is nothing more than wild speculation presented in an attempt to overcome the obvious weaknesses of the many theories of evolution speculated about by others.
If anything, this article casts further doubt on evolution.
How can you claim to have anything of value to add to these discussions if, after all this time, you're *still* unclear on the distinction between the fact of evolution and the theories about how it proceeds in specific instances?
Hint: Evolution is slow in some instances, not so slow in others, depending on the circumstances. This article addresses some particular types of circumstances which affect the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. There's no contradiction with prior research.
This article is nothing more than wild speculation
It's based on a great deal of work, which puts it far beyond "wild speculation". It may or may not turn out to hold water when further investigated, but your desperate creationist habit of trying to hand-wave away all research and considered conclusions based on a thorough examination of the real-world evidence as "nothing more than wild speculation" just makes you guys look goofy. Sorry, but "wild speculation" is what *creationists* do when they make up things based on their total ignorance of actual biology and then mistake their presumptions for established facts. For example, like *you* did here when you made wildly incorrect assumptions about how biology "must" work... Now *that* was "wild speculation"!
presented in an attempt to overcome the obvious weaknesses of the many theories of evolution speculated about by others.
And what exactly would those "obvious weaknesses" be? Be specific, let's see if you have any clue what you're talking about. Be sure not to repeat any of these other long debunked creationist canards about the "weaknesses" in evolutionary biology.
If anything, this article casts further doubt on evolution.
It doesn't, but your post casts further doubt on your ability to keep up with technical discussions.
By Robert N. Bostrom
This summer marks the 20th anniversary of the Flat Earth Society's founding, and I'm sorry to say that the media have largely ignored our organization and its contribution to contemporary thinking and the quality of life.
The society was founded to defend the right of Americans to insist on equal treatment by the school systems and a balanced approach to the teaching of science. It has been well established that the beliefs of individuals must be considered when schools design curricula.
Imagine the feelings of a child whose family believes in a flat Earth and has to hear that some of their most precious beliefs are ignored, or worse, derided. Oppressive government and lock-step educational institutions insist that they know everything, in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary.
If you've ever been to Kansas, you know the Earth is flat. If you've been up in a lighthouse and looked out at the ocean, you can see that this planet is as flat as can be. In spite of the evidence of our senses, schools everywhere in America are continuing to teach about the round Earth as if it were an established fact and not just a theory, which it is.
We of the Flat Earth Society want equal time in the schools to see that our point of view is presented as an alternative to the established view that the Earth is round. We want to start out by having the globes in schools and publicly funded institutions carry a warning sign that they represent only one view of the shape of the Earth and that other theories are worth our attention.
All of the so-called evidence for a round Earth theory is indirect and can be interpreted in many ways. We know that Magellan actually sailed in a great circle and not around the world as he claimed.
And recently, we have seen pictures taken by so-called astronauts that purport to show a round Earth. If you really believe the astronauts went to the moon and not to Arizona, you are dumber than we think.
Nonetheless, Flat Earth members have not had nearly as much media attention as we would like. Our friends who espouse scientific creationism have done much better, and we believe that their success has been due to the support of churches and religious organizations.
At first it may seem odd that a church would have a point of view about scientific questions, but you can't argue with success. The creationists have browbeaten school boards and departments of education into allowing mention of their theories in school science classes, and we want the same respect.
From most science teachers' point of view, a flat Earth is no more ridiculous than a magical account of creation with floods and miraculous creation from ribs and stuff. So it is obvious that we need to enlist churches in our cause, and we are negotiating with some of the more enlightened groups to support us.
We were horribly disappointed when the Catholic Church announced that Galileo was right after all, and so we have given up on it. But if anyone out there is interested in forming an alliance, we would like to talk to you. Look in your Bible; you won't find anything about a round Earth in it.
In spite of hardship, the Flat Earth Society continues its efforts, and we think the next 20 years will be better. We know that liberal newspapers will pay us little attention, so we are going to rely on word of mouth. Our word to you is to trust your senses and don't let scientists pull the wool over your eyes.
If nothing else, we want views about a round Earth treated as the theories that they really are and not established fact. Equal time is the American way.
Here's an excellent commentary from the editor of Creationsafaris regarding this study: