Replies

Gould, and one other scientists who I can't remember the name of, were the originators of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which says that evolution may not have occurred in a smooth line of subtle changes, but in quantum-like leaps, with new species, or changes to a specie, happening within a generation.

This tells me you don't know anything about punk eek, nor did you read the article. The article explained it correctly:

At its most simplistic, the idea of punctuated equilibrium was presented as an alternative to the "gradualism" of traditional Darwinism. Rather than species evolving gradually, mutation by mutation, over a long period of time, Professor Gould argued they arose within a period of tens of thousands rather than tens of millions of years – a blink of the eye in geological terms.

(This, of course, to explain the complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record.)

Yeah, a complete lack of intermediates. <ahem> a complete lack of intermediates. <cough> I said a complete lack of intermediates!!!

I give up. Help me out here. Can you give us some examples of this "complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record"?

Help me out here. Can you give us some examples of this "complete lack of intermediate changes in the fossil record"?

The fossil record doesn't show intermediate changes along a linear path. It doesn't show "A gave rise to B, which gave rise to C, which gave rise to D...etc." It shows "Well, here's fossil A...And here's fossil D...but there's no record of B and C." Paleontologists take great leaps in connecting the dots. The reason these intermediate forms are called the "missing link" is because they're missing. Gould tries to explain this missing data away, without bringing evolution itself into question. He starts by saying, "OK, evolution is true...so how do I explain the missing data in the fossil record?" If his premise ("evolution is true") is wrong, his explanation is wrong. But he doesn't allow for premise to be wrong.

Well there are a few problems with your "proofs". The first one of course is that they are all from those folk at TalkOrigins who are so ashamed of what they write that they do not even put their names to it. The second problem is with all the crazy names, one really never knows what the evidence really is. Are these so-called species a tooth? An ankle bone? How can one tell the reproductive system of an amphibian from that of a mammal, from that of a reptile from a few bones? This seems to be the main difference, the telltale difference between these three major orders of vertebrates, yet the bones tell us nothing about this transformation, how it took place or when it took place. In fact for mammals, the most recent transformation of these (according to evolutionists) the only thing we have is a GAP!

Finally, someone who is not such an unthinking minion that they can actually provide at least some links to support their contention that the lack of evidence is at least partially ameliorated by some serious conjecture :->. Well done.

As an aside, your third link contains the following:

"There are a number of known evolutionary mechanisms, such as the Founder Effect..." Do you have any other information about this effect? It was the only mechanism that did not have a link.