Niles Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria (Page 2) zeffur: Evolution proponents have no genuine basis for calling the ToE 'fact' or "science". My position has always been that what they offer is a "belief" on the macro-level which essentially equates to all life emerged from a unicellular organism & 'evolved' to what we see today. The problems with that belief are: A. They know of no such initial organism or if it even existed--therefore, it's not based on reality--it's an assumption & speculation. B. They believe random mutations are the primary natural mechanism that leads to improvements & divisions in organisms & then selection is the mechanism that makes such improvements become increasingly dominant & then normal biology & heredity (the synthesis of various combinations of genetic possibilities is the other main natural mechanism for evolution (which it isn't--that's just normal biology which is hijacked/co-opted by 'evoution' proponents to make it their own). Normal biology isn't evolution as there isn't any evidence that it 'improves' any species to become any other kind of species--which would be necessary for diversification of species & new species to be created. Evolution proponents have ZERO credible evidence to show how any series of mutations has ever led to any morphological transformation in any organism to become any other kind of organism. We know from selective breeding (flies, dogs, etc) that no such transformation has ever occurred. What we see from mutations are defects, diseases, & death--not improvements & certainly no evidence of improvements towards another kind of organism. Adaptation is another one of their misleaders. As stated earlier by me & others, adaptation is not evolution because it only leaves survivors behind--what they had in their genome & the good fortunate that they had in their environment/situation isn't any improvement in their dna. They already had in their genome what was necessary to survive--others of their kind weren't so fortunate & they perished. That is survival of the fittest & it has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. The fossil record is just a history of the survivors. When the conditions became too extreme, all of a kind perish. Since evolution proponents offer no convincing/persuasive case for evolution by mutation, adaptation, or by any other natural mechanism--one has to wonder what the true basis is for their beliefs--arguably that seems to be their atheism, unwillingness to concede the most plausible explanation for life on earth is from an off-world source (not panspermia as intelligence is necessary to create anything orderly--in opposition to entropy--which is natural). As before, people are free to believe whatever rubbish they wish to believe--but, frankly--they have no rational basis for their 'beliefs' that I have ever seen. ymmv (Edited by zeffur)  AchillesSinatra: Would anyone like to see my Zeffur impersonation? "Evolution is a lot of shite". Now, repeat it 500000000000 times. And we might be friends zeffur: Perhaps you can take up their caca mantel & pretend like they do... That would be much more interesting then the drivel that you typically type. zeffur: Something to consider (a snippet of a Blackshoes Posting): "No one has ever produced a [new] species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." Colin Patterson, "Cladistics." Interview on BBC, March 4, 1982. Dr. Patterson is the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition. . . ." Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co., 1979), p. 39. "As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly. . . ." Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist (Vol. 108; December 5, 1985), p. 67. Dr. Kemp is Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University. "In any case, no real evolutionist . . . uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. . . ." Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" New Scientist (vol. 90; June 25, 1981), p. 831. Dr. Ridley is Professor of Zoology at Oxford University. "I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. . . . we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Stephen Jay Gould, "The Ediacaran Experiment," Natural History (vol. 93; February 1984), p. 23. Dr. Gould, Professor of Geology at Harvard, is arguably the nation's most prominent modern evolutionist. "And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"10Niles Eldredge, op. cit., p. 52. "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" Tom Kemp, op. cit., p. 66. "How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes?" Sydney Harris, "Second Law of Thermodynamics." This nationally syndicated column appeared in the San Francisco Examiner on January 27, 1984. ". . . the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Arnold Sommerfeld, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics (New York: Academic Press, 1956), p. 155. "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems." John Ross, Letter-to-the-Editor, Chemical and Engineering News (July 7, 1980), p. 40. Ross is at Harvard University. "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced. Sir Gavin de Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 15. Sir Gavin is a leading European evolutionist "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 289. Denton is a research microbiologist in Australia. "An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . . leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory." S.R. Scadding, "Do `Vestigial Organs' Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory (vol. 5, May 1981), p. 173. "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence." D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), p. 197. zeffur: All of that ^^ is consistent with what I typed above---what do you have to offer? Oh that's right--you're ever learning & never coming to an understanding of the truth.. Gotcha! AchillesSinatra: This thread is not a platform for religious wackos to vent their sacerdotal spleens. Stay on topic  zeffur: Given that I'm not a priest or a religious wacko in any way & this forum is about evolution, what I've written is on topic. As for Punctuated Equilibria"--that's just another rubbish theory that isn't convincing/persuasive in any way. AchillesSinatra: "As for Punctuated Equilibria"--that's just another rubbish theory that isn't convincing/persuasive in any way." As cogent arguments go, I've seen stronger. I wouldn't want to attack a strawman. What's your position again? "It's rubbish?" zeffur: My position is that it has no merit because it isn't convincing/pursuasive--i.e. it's a rubbish theory. AchillesSinatra: I have a better idea: Why not rephrase your powerful argument as "It's a load of shite"? AchillesSinatra: Ok, if anyone is not persuaded by your "It's a load of bollocks" argument, I can't help them  AchillesSinatra: "The burden of proof isn't on me--it's on the person/people making the assertion." You just made the assertion, namely "It's a pile of crap". AchillesSinatra: Of course, your cogency would be enhanced if you understood it. Would you like to explain the theory of Punctuated Equilibria for those less well endowed than yourself? AchillesSinatra: Well, I sure can. How much time do you have? Doesn't seem worth it, though, for two reasons: 1. You're too thick to get it 2. Your conclusion will be another Apallachian "It's shit, maaaaan!" zeffur: No. They can Google is like everyone else. Are you convinced that the theory of Punctuated Equilibria is true? If yes, what evidence do you consider convincing/persuasive that it is true?? If no, then what are you blathering on for? AchillesSinatra: Of course it's not true. No scientific theories are true. Keeps me off the streets, though. | Science Chat Room 5 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
