Another example of your dishonesty. Lying by misquotation.
Really? Where? Be specific and precise.
You did indeed assert that the Cambrian explosion was somehow "unexplainable", and that (you alleged) Gould backed you up on that, as you go on to admit:
My statement in post#123 said:
Seems I am not the only person that says that it is unexplainable by Darwinian evolution. The quote from a recent book by Gould completely justifies the statement:
Now, let's look at Gould's quote to see whether it agrees with you that the Cambrian explosion is "unexplainable by Darwinian evolution":
"Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)
Nice try, but this does *not* support your bizarre belief. First, being a "massive" event of "geological abruptness" in no way equals being "unexplainable". In fact, anyone who has read Gould's voluminous works on the Cambrian explosion could not possibly miss the fact that he consistently believes that evolution is entirely able to account for it. Pick up a copy of his book "Wonderful Life" for just one massive example. Even a cursory examination of Gould's writings makes it entirely clear that he sure as hell does *not* agree with you on this point. So if anyone is "lying" by selective quotation here, it's you.
Furthermore, if you're under the mistaken belief that Gould's disagreement with "Darwinian gradualism" is the same thing as a rejection of "Darwinian *evolution*", you're grossly mistaken. While Darwin did lean towards a belief that evolution would usually proceed slowly, that doesn't change the fact that even though we've learned in the past 144 years that evolution can proceed at varying rates (sometimes rapidly by geological standards, sometimes almost coming to a standstill), the processes driving the transformation are still those which Darwin laid out. In other words, "Darwinian evolution" is vindicated even though a presumption of "nothing but gradualism" is not. Gould writes:
"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism that we must reject, not Darwinism."Or:
- Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb (1980), p. 182, emphasis added.
"It [punctuated equilibrium] represents no departure from Darwinian mechanisms."So much for Gould "agreeing" with you and disagreeing with "Darwinian evolution", eh?
-- Gould and Eldredge 1977, Section IV, "PE as the basis for a Theory of Macroevolution", page 139
Furthermore, Gould has long been faulted for overstating Darwin's belief in gradualism. The following quote from Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" makes clear that he fully expected sudden events to appear in the fossil record, *and* that evolution would proceed at varying rates at different times:
"Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration, I am inclined to believe, has been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. ... During the alternate periods of elevation and of stationary level the record will be blank. During these latter periods there will probably be more variability in the forms of life; during periods of subsidence, more extinction."Or even more succinctly:Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.In fact, it's obvious that Darwin himself foresaw at least the basics of punctuated equilibrium, if not the full scope of it.
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
As usual you are just plain lying and are showing your complete disregard for the truth by distorting my statements and distorting the evidence.
I'll let readers draw their own conclusions about who is more guilty of such things.
Further, both he and Eldredge split completely with Darwinian evolutionists on account of this and proposed the totally moronic, punctuated equilibrium theory which postulates that no evidence of evolution is proof of evolution
There you go again, going off the deep end. As even the above quotes should make clear, Gould hardly "split completely with Darwinian evolutionists". And again, anyone who has actually bothered to read his works couldn't possibly make such a bone-headed mistake about his position.
You would be well advised to read All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost): Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium. Table of contents is as follows, you might find some of the points familiar:
Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:That on occassion he might have tried to speak nicely to Darwinians,1. There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
2. Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
3. PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
4. PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
5. Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).
One moment while I roll my eyes...
does not change the fact that he dedicated the whole last decades of his life to justifying a non-Darwinian, non-gradualistic theory of evolution.
Non-gradualistic, yes. Non-Darwinian, no. Try to learn the difference.
First of all I have already answered your statement and why it is a lie. My statement was that Gould stated that the Cambrian refuted gradual Darwinian evolution. I have quoted the passage twice and it is quite clear to any honest person with a third grade understanding of English:
Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." (Gould, Stephen J., Nature, vol. 377, October 1995, p.682.)
Your disgraceful dishonesty in willfully mistating what I have said and ignoring the proof given for them as if it had not been given shows quite well that you are not interested in the truth and will shamelessly lie repeatedly in the hope that repetion will make your words true.
You are just another evolutionist loser.
PE does not require anything except an atheist turn of mind. It denies the need for evidence since there is no way to tell that anything transformed itself into something else. It just 'happens'. It is therefore not science, but absolute garbage.
The problem of a whole species, or a large portion of it evolving at once is a difficulty which evolutionists have not explained very well. The problem of random changes spreading through a population is quite difficult. Even Darwin thought that evolution could more easily take place in small populations. The problem is that any change has to be small so that the individuals can still mate with each other. The changes also have to occur evenly throughout the population. In other words, the whole species sort of has to evolve together. This is all much easier said than done, this is especially problematic when we come to sexual reproduction. In fact, this problem by itself, seems to me to completely destroy Gould's punk-eek.