As if well-known makes it somehow correct. My leg. but I digress.
Do you evolutionists actually believe in punctuated equilibrium?
It's pretty funny. When a man argues that the first cell could not have sprang to life because its too complicated, the evolutionary scientist argues that it it happened a little bit at a time and really was no big deal. But when a man argues against ASBE (All Species By Evolution) saying that we're not finding the billions of intermediate species fossils that we should be, then the evolutionary scientists argue that it happened in spurts, where multiple benefits were being prepared for before they were of any use.
Reminds me of the guy who murdered somebody, but who plead innocent on account of insanity. At first the defendant's lawyer argued for insanity and the prosecutor argued that the defendant was sane. Then the judge sentenced the defendant to life in a mental ward. But a year later, the defendant decided he's feeling fine now - so now the prosecutor and the defendant's lawyer are arguing over the exact same thing, but now they've both changed sides - now the prosecutor is arguing that the defendant is insane and the lawyer is arguing for sanity!
Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?
So when we're talking about tiny cells which don't leave fossils, then it's a slow gradual process. But if we're talking about stuff that should have left fossils, then it goes in jumps!
What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium? Isn't it just a result of "We know we evolved but since there are so many missing links they must have equiliberally punctuated?"
By the way, I realize that evolutionists don't like to admit to the vast missing links, but they do well know about them and it bothers some of them otherwise we wouldn't have bright minds proposing things like punctuated equilibrium.
So when the prediction is first made that all species came by evolution, it can be rightly be said that "We just haven't found all dem bones yet." But after enough time we ought to expect to be seeing some more of these billions of intermediate (and I do mean incrementally intermediate - not a few sparse handfuls that jump millions of years and could well be produced by the degree of variation observed in dogs in the last 200 years) Anyway, after enough time of nothing like we should be getting, one must ask the question "Maybe we've been had." Just how long can we go on before we see that the bill isn't just late - it's entirely missing?
-Jesse
Yes, but I'm not a biologist. Evolution isn't my specialty.
What is the best evidence for punctuated equilibrium?
As I understand it, the fossil record shows many species staying relatively unchanged for large periods of time. Then when change occurs it appears in the fossil record to have been quick or essentially instantaneous on a geologic time scale. Other species evolved very slowly or gradually.
To me this suggests that environmental conditions and competitors were fairly constant for species that evolved slowly while they differed substantially or changed dramatically for species who were geographically isolated from each other. The geographic isolation and different conditions favored different characteristics in the species. When isolated species came in contact after millions of years of isolation, there were enough mutations in the DNA that they were effectively different species unable to reproduce together.
Something like that anyway. As I said, I'm not an expert in evolution. It just makes far better sense to me than one of the creation stories.
I gather there are examples of so called missing links in the fossil record that show change occurring in multiple stages over eons. But you'd best ask an evolution scientist about it.
Is that how it works in science? Is it like a corrupted court system where they argue one line of reasoning one day then just the opposite the next day, depending on what point they are trying to make?
As new evidence is found that indicates problems with a theory, new or modified theories that better explain the data are proposed. There is nothing corrupt, perverted, or dishonest about the process. It is a search for truth based on evidence.