PE does not require anything except an atheist turn of mind.
Ad hominem attack.
It denies the need for evidence since there is no way to tell that anything transformed itself into something else.
Nonsense. Horse manure, in fact. Genetic studies, for example, can easily trace ancestry trees, and are further confirmed by fossil evidence.
It just 'happens'.
Straw man misrepresentation -- there's far more to evolutionary biology than such empty statements.
It is therefore not science, but absolute garbage.
Unsupported conclusion from false premises.
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.
"Whole species" do not evolve -- straw man misrepresentation.
The problem of random changes spreading through a population is quite difficult.
False, there are many proven mechanisms for them to do so, as well as field studies which have seen it occur.
Even Darwin thought that evolution could more easily take place in small populations.
You're undercutting your case, that *supports* punctuated equilibrium.
The problem is that any change has to be small so that the individuals can still mate with each other.
Trivially disproved nonsense: Many large changes would not intefere with mating.
The changes also have to occur evenly throughout the population. In other words, the whole species sort of has to evolve together.
Astounding ignorance of actual evolutionary biology. No, it does not. Splinter groups can evolve away from the main population.
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.
The evolution of gender has already been explained to you, don't pretend it's an insoluble mystery.
Final score: Strike out.
Ad hominem attack.
No, a fact. Both Gould and Eldredge are /were virulent atheists and there is absolutely no evidence required for Punctuated Equilibrium. In fact it is based on lack of evidence.
Nonsense. Horse manure, in fact. Genetic studies, for example, can easily trace ancestry trees, and are further confirmed by fossil evidence.
False. Not with PE. The central theme of PE is that we cannot find the fossils. It also does not even postulate how the changes may have taken place so there is no way to determine if a change was PE or not. It is thus pure charlatanism.
It just 'happens'.-me-
Straw man misrepresentation -- there's far more to evolutionary biology than such empty statements.
Here comes the doubletalk. Mixing PE with Darwinism. PE says that we cannot find the fossils which transformed because they changed suddenly and were in a small out of the way place. It postulates therefore that lack of evidence is evidence. It is pure charlatanism.
It is therefore not science, but absolute garbage.-me- Unsupported conclusion from false premises.
Nope. Science requires evidence, PE is just an attempt at ignoring the lack of evidence.
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.-me-
"Whole species" do not evolve -- straw man misrepresentation.
More evolutionist doubletalk. On one side evolutionists claim that random change can create complex new organs and functions because there are numerous individuals in a species acting as a testing laboratory for these new changes. That these new changes get bit by bit added on to and from those the new fucntions are gradually built up. So yes it takes a large number of individuals in a species to make it work. And yes it takes a large number of individuals in a species to change together to make the evolution model work. This is especially so in sexual species where if a large group does not change together there will be no one to mate with along the way because the organism will become too far different to reproduce with anyone. In fact, it is a necessity of evolution for a group to change together in sexual species because evolution postulates that eventually a new species which can no longer mate with the original species will arise.
It should be noted that you have not provided a single bit of explanation for your statements. All you have done is say 'it is not so'. This is not evidence, it is not even decent discussion. It is just arrogant blather.