Finally, by focussing obsessively on the *gaps*, you appear to be intentionally trying to draw attention away from the way in which the "nongaps" (the actual evidence which *has* been acquired) overwhelmingly draws an unmistakable pattern of evolutionary development and interrelatedness."The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be used against my theory." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859.
The gaps go to the heart of Darwinian orthodoxy. Darwin posited a continuum of micro changes over vast time spans. A continuous system not a discontinuous system.
If it can be demonstrated scientifically that the evolution of life is in fact discontinuous and not continuous, then Darwin is falsified.
Science has already falsified Creationism of the Morris-Gish variety. However Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) and Intelligent Design (ID), are still in play.
PE has the advantage in that it doesn't require an intelligent agent but has a problem with the mechanism of change. Very quick jumps between species are required. Jumping genes anyone?
ID has the same advantage that PE has (no problem with the fossil record) but posits an intelligent agent as the mechanism for change. It has the disadvantage in that the intelligent agent may be beyond the capabilities of science to identify.
"The gaps go to the heart of Darwinian orthodoxy. Darwin posited a continuum of micro changes over vast time spans. A continuous system not a discontinuous system."
Why didn't you post the rest of Darwin's statement where he explains why the spottiness of the fossil record is not a problem? That only a very very tiny percentage of organisms ever become fossilized? Is it too much to expect that an ID/creationist would actually try to give a quote in its proper context so that it doesn't say the opposite of what the author meant?
"PE has the advantage in that it doesn't require an intelligent agent but has a problem with the mechanism of change. Very quick jumps between species are required. Jumping genes anyone?"
The mechanism of change is still natural selection working on mutations; the time period is over 10's of thousands of years instead of hundred's of K or a million.
"ID has the same advantage that PE has (no problem with the fossil record) but posits an intelligent agent as the mechanism for change. It has the disadvantage in that the intelligent agent may be beyond the capabilities of science to identify."
May be? lol Nobody has shown how it is in any way possible to identify the *designer*.