I stipulate to the existance of the fossil record. It's the SciDogma that fossils are sufficient proof of the theory of evolution and anyone who points out that the fossil record says nothing about the creation of the basic forms, only how they changed, is deluded-out-of-the-box. Should they also profess to a religious belief, they are automatically relegated to the ranks of creationists, although I have twice stated I am not. Please stop attacking me where we agree and explain how Stegasaurus A,B, and C speaks to the question about the gills, feathers, and kidneys.
In no way does the fossil record explain how life began, how individual cells came together to form vital organs, why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional, and not a detriment to survival.
You said: "The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote."
Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.
One of the hallmarks of sucessful scientific discovery has always been an open mind and the refusal to accept the status quo
Give it a whirl, cast off your preconceptions, question your beliefs.
Are you sure? Are you familiar with how far back the fossil record goes and what kind of changes it does show? Just an example of what I'm talking about:
Phylum-Level Evolution, by recovering YEC Glenn R. Morton.
. . . why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional . . .
If it's a positive survival trait, it's functional enough to make a difference and be retained. The early function may be much less than, or even qualitatively different from, the later function. (For instance, a bat's wings were once grasping hands.)
Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.
Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is an important theory, like that of Darwin which it modifies and extends. It is the theory, and not Gould or Darwin, which is important. Science is not a religion--dispite the claim (a projection of their own belief system?) of creationists--and does not have saints or infallible authority figures.
Just noticed what I believe is your source for this. From the main article of this thread:
“I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know,” writes Gould, “but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science” (Gould, 1983).
Are you aware of the difference between what Gould says and what you say he says? Gould is saying every evolutionary theory he knows of can potentially be falsified--say, by finding a radio in Cretaceous sediments. You're saying Gould is already aware of and admitting falsifying data for every case.
I didn't pay too much attention to this on the first pass because Gould has given the Luddites a fair amount of quote material, hyping his Punk-Eek by running down "Neo-Darwinism" (gradualistic scenarios). Thus I'm used to seeing his quotes taken out of context and distorted to make it appear he's not a Darwinist at all. However, on closer examination, you've taken a unique license here.