Replies

You seem not to have understood my points and I'm not inclined to exchange rants. I'm not a creationist, but posts like yours make me quite sypathetic.

Sorry to disappoint, but Gould's on my shelf. I'm guilty of the crime of not agreeing with all he said, even if you repeat it in boldface.

Gould and you twist yourselves into pretzels insisting that punk-eek is really what Darwin meant and his followers for the hundred years after just misunderstood him. The fact that Darwin envisioned intermittence in the process he theorized doesn't alter the fact that he proposed a gradualism that the fossil record as it later developed just doesn't support. It's amazing to me that in this field of science, unique to the best of my knowledge, there is a stubborn insistence that we got it all right in 1859, period. Peruse The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to see how much change and advancement have characterized science. Those who insist we know it all and can go from a draft to a final print usually have ended up decades later with egg on their face. We are just beginning to understand how the genome works and what structures and mechanisms may cause it to change. To claim at this time that there is no explanation for change in organisms other than random genetic mutation is folly. Despite his strenuous denials, Gould's theory strongly implies purpose. Now whether the mechanism, the change agent, is purely biological or something else, I don't know. I'm willing to go where the evidence that scientists come up with in the future leads me.

Thanks for reminding me again why I occasionally lurk on these threads but mainly refrain from posting. Goodbye. I've got to go back to my playpen, read some creationist tracts and suck some eggs.