Originally posted by chickenlover98
🙁 i was hoping you'd explain the definition of macroevolution in a clear definite stance, and this could be the official thread on the theory...however if no one wishs to participate, then ill just report it and get it closed i guess...
Do you always make digi defend your points for you?
Originally posted by Quark_666
Do you always make digi defend your points for you?
Usually.
On the one hand, it's kinda nice because he's like my personal fan club in this forum. On the other hand, he says some stupid sh*t occasionally, so I kinda have to be like "bad dog! Don't pee on the carpet!" or the human parallel.
313
....
Also, awesome quote there X. And completely true. Gould is second only to bulldogs like Dawkins and Shermer in debunking creationist perversion of science, but is too often misquoted for their purposes.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Usually.On the one hand, it's kinda nice because he's like my personal fan club in this forum. On the other hand, he says some stupid sh*t occasionally, so I kinda have to be like "bad dog! Don't pee on the carpet!" or the human parallel.
313
....
Also, awesome quote there X. And completely true. Gould is second only to bulldogs like Dawkins and Shermer in debunking creationist perversion of science, but is too often misquoted for their purposes.
oh well all i can say to that is 💃
Originally posted by chickenlover98
in all honesty im suprised it took this long for someone to say something 😛for the tuff stuff ya sure. particularly because he articulates things better and doesnt come off as.....overly eager i guess.
One thing is certain...nobody debates quite like someone who used to agree with his opponents!
Originally posted by inimalist
Is there anyone who a) actually believes that is what the argument between Gould and Dawkins was or b) doesn't or wants to know?
chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jump
All I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.
Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jumpAll I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.
I've met people at my school who try to disprove phyletic gradualism using the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but I've never seen any actual evidence that the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium tries to imply that cladogenesis is the only form of fossilized diversity. The fossil record contains zero transitions? NONE? I know you say we should all know that, but can you back that up for us anyway?
Yes, the concepts contradict, but you can't pretend only one of them has any evidence behind them.
Originally posted by ushomefree
chickenlover98... I quoted someone! jumpAll I said was--and I can't believe people are actually bickering--is that the fossil record would contain transitions if Darwinian evolution were true; but the fossil record contains zero transitions. Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium." Punctuated Equilibrium is an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution. Again, this is precisely why Richard Dawkins dismisses the theory. His credentials are on the line.
you quoting someone slowly reaffirms the growing belief in me that there is a higher power.
that higher power of course being the almighty Chuck Norris
Originally posted by ushomefree
Who on this thread provided quotes by Stephen J. Gould?
You did. Not quotes, but his ideas, which you falsely represented as backing ID (it does nothing of the sort).
Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree, but Gould does expose weaknesses of Darwininan theory (indirectly). Is anyone willing to come to terms with that? That is precisely why Richard Dawkins disagrees with the theory--Punctuated Equilibrium.
*slaps forehead*
They're both Darwinian.
This is classic disingenuous ID tactics. "Evolutionists disagree, so they can't even decide whether or not they agree with their theory!!!!!" Such worthless tripe.
Gould was a monstrous enemy of ID, and his work does nothing that you claim it does. Legit scientists don't debate whether or not evolution happened, just differ on some of the details. They refine the facts that the data give us, and they do so scientifically, not in the "A isn't 100% right, so B must be 100% right" methods of creationists like yourself.
Now quit trying to pull me into debate. You annoy me and I generally kick your ass anyway. You'd be better off preying on the fence-walkers.
{edit} Read the non-butchered Gould quote below. I think it summarizes his feelings eloquently.
Originally posted by ushomefree
Anyone who is remotely interested in evolution knows this fact, and so did Stephen J. Gould--hence the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium."
Steven J. Gould
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
lulz at posts in this thread.
Originally posted by DigiMark007You did. Not quotes, but his ideas, which you falsely represented as backing ID (it does nothing of the sort).
Statements that I made about Stephen J. Gould were in direct consequence to the fossil record having zero transitions. Stephen J. Gould affirms this in the quote posted by xmarksthespot; but that is beside the point. And I never quoted Stephen J. Gould to begin with.
That fact that Stephen J. Gould developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium satisfies my primary statement: the fossil record contains zero transitions. If the fossil record contained transitions, the theory of punctuated equilibrium would be unwarranted. Who cares about the quote? Can't you read between the lines?
And the latter of my post contained statements about punctuated equilibrium being a source of embarrassment to Darwinian evolution--hence the distaste of Richard Dawkins. Why must you be difficult?
Moreover, I never stated that Stephen J. Gould claimed that evolution was false (or whatever). Stop applying notions to my posts that are clearly not evident.
Originally posted by DigiMark007*slaps forehead*
They're both Darwinian.
This is classic disingenuous ID tactics. "Evolutionists disagree, so they can't even decide whether or not they agree with their theory!!!!!" Such worthless tripe.
Gould was a monstrous enemy of ID, and his work does nothing that you claim it does. Legit scientists don't debate whether or not evolution happened, just differ on some of the details. They refine the facts that the data give us, and they do so scientifically, not in the "A isn't 100% right, so B must be 100% right" methods of creationists like yourself.
Now quit trying to pull me into debate. You annoy me and I generally kick your ass anyway. You'd be better off preying on the fence-walkers.
{edit} Read the non-butchered Gould quote below. I think it summarizes his feelings eloquently.
And blah, blah, blah.... Talk about "tripe!" doh
When are we playing Chess?
Originally posted by xmarksthespotGould doesn't affirm anything you've said in that quote. He derides such an interpretation of punctuated equilibrium as either stupidity or disingenuousness. Ironically, you're either deliberately or densely misinterpreting his statement.
Who cares about the quote; I never quoted the man. I based a claim--that the fossil record contained no transitions--in regard to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Period. Does a reason exist to harp on this? Enlight on punctuated equilibrium theory, are we to conclude that the fossil record contains transitions? Absolutely not! Who cares if Creationists (or anybody with an opinion) misquoted him? I certainly did not, and my assumption--about the fossil record--is not unfair. Do something more constructive with your time, please.