Posted on 09/20/2006 9:51:34 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I know because I've had to relearn some theories since I taught this class 25 years ago, but the facts are the same. For example, the universe has doubled in age since I was a boy,which gives you an idea of just how old I am.
That's a really strange quote, and a fairly worthless one. I wouldn't repeat it. It starts off OK, but then when the author goes to give an example of a theory that has changed, he says, "the age of the universe has doubled".
"The age of the universe" is not a theory. It is a fact: it is a physical property of the universe that we measure. It may be possible to derive a prediction of the age of the universe from a theory, but that's not what is done: we calculate it from a series of physical measurements.
"But in order to calculate, you need a theory!" you say. Perhaps, but those aspects of the theory (e.g. how light propagates through the universe, and how stars and supernovae work) haven't changed very much, while the measurements and measurement techniques have. The age of the universe is no more a theory than the length of your foot is a theory.
If anything, his example stands as a counterexample of his assertion that facts remain the same.
Now, you may argue that the "fact" is the true age of the universe, and that that hasn't changed (much), even if our measurement has changed. But when it comes to physical properties, measurements are all science ever has to work with. And yes, they change.
That "particular fossil series" was one the one YOU provided to support your claim that Ann Coulter (and most evolutionary biologists) falsely say the fossil record does not show gradualism.
Here is what Wiki says about phyletic gradualism
Punk ek et al are attempts to defend evolution in lieu of the fossil record.
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of these practices.Of course, Darwin had actually beat Gould and Eldredge to a lot of that, including being dishonestly quote-mined to death.I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much. We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost)
Each item above is expanded and factually supported in detail on the web page.
- 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."
- Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
- PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
- PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
- 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).
Not that this will stop you from LOLing back next time with the same pig-ignorant unfactual talking points you're clinging to against all evidence here.
IOW, the fossil record does not support Darwn's gradualism as Miss Coulter has been saying. And what's this "would be the same as" stuff? Gradualism, by definition, requires a constant rate i.e. small stages, imperceptibly small, cumulative steps etc..
Not that this will stop you from LOLing back next time
LOL.
Vade, this is a religion with you. Not with me.
Absolutely false and already refuted by the post to which you purportedly reply here. You ignore what Darwin said, what PE is, and what the fossil record is, all of which has been presented to you. Read the materials before "rebutting," please.
What Coulter has been saying is full of untruths and fallacies, as richly documented. So are your own statements.
So here you are in LOLing repetition, refuted but still playing the broken record. Not much more to be said. Your brain on creationism--grownups misbehaving in public. You're one of the poster boys (but so are all the rest of you) for why I don't want to "teach the controversy." "The controversy" exists outside of science and was invented by ineducable LOLing snotheads.
So you're doing this because you just like to misrepresent and act the fool in public? I'm forbidden by forum rules to characterize your performance as accurately as would otherwise be possible.
If I believed you, your behavior would be even harder to understand. Believe it or not, though, it isn't that hard to see Holy Warrior Syndrome in action, even when the Holy Warrior is being less than forthcoming.
Point taken.
So now your saying Darwin was a gradualist?
I do read your materials, generally. They don't rebut anything. Your post don't rebut anything. You are putting your fingers in your ear, closing your eyes and shouting "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you. Everything was an accident."
I can't argue astronomy. I'm not an astronomer. But I do know words and words mean things. This college professor, who has been teaching for a number of years, quote about theories is accurate. Theories can, and do, change. However, there are many scientists today who would like you to believe that theories are laws. They are not.
I take it you are not an astronomer yourself so your astronomical opinions are about like mine-next to meaningless. (Since you've labeled yourself "Physicist" you actually may have more knowledge about astronomy than my two semesters in it. But I digress.) I would suggest what you find wrong with this author is his statement that theories can change-not his views on astronomy. Astronomers better than anyone knows how frequently theories changes and, at least, are up front about that.
The quotation you posted does not disagree at all with the definitions I posted. Better go back and read them again.
I wouldn't dismiss things that have no credible explanation. That is often the way science advances.
Living, human, but at a stage of development in which it can only survive in a womb.
The questions here (basically, what restrictions to place on abortion) are legal, not scientific ones, to be decided by legislatures and courts.
The leftist smears on behalf of the argument that there are no people only trousered apes has no effect if you recognize the source and ignore such "arguments" accordingly.
I'm Catholic but I can certainly see the Biblical wisdom in: "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Any "science" that claims that men are trousered apes is BS and no more worthy of considered response than is the notion that the moon is made of green cheese. By definition, God CANNOT be wrong. The same cannot be said of "science."
If simple faith is unsatisfying to you, ask me if I care.
Conservative websites should serve to unite conserevatives in matters political for action to translate ideals into reality and not as advertising forums for the propagation of ridiculous nonsense like evolution.
Since you want to do question and answer: Just what are YOUR personal credentials as a conservative activist since you plainly propagandize for the secular humanist enemies of conservatism when you claim that men are apes or descended from apes or whatever the Darwinian falsehood du jour may be?
How is that Free Republic poll on teaching creationism and intelligent design coming????
You persist in defaming religion by using it as as an epithet. It is interesting that the word religion, for you, implies something false and worthless.
If I were going to invent on this subject, on a conservative website, it would have made more sense to suggest that Lincoln was the apple of Marx's eye. The actual fact was that even Marx had no use for Lincoln.
Revise your sentence to insert "a London Times correspondent" for "the London Times correspondent."
If the correspondent to whom you refer was surnamed Russell, he was probably the son of Lord Russell and therefore an unlikely press agent for Lincoln as well. Either Lord Russell or, more likely, Lord Palmerston then owned the London Times. Neither Lord Russell nor Lord Palmerston (Tory MPs who took turns as PM and Foreign Secretary during the Second War for Independence) were particular fans of Abraham Lincoln. It took Prince Albert of Coburg, Victoria's hubby, on his death bed to dissuade Palmerston and Russell of recognizing the Confederacy solely on the question of slavery, but not before the British laird Shipyards built and launched the magnificent Confederate rams Alabama and Tennessee.
What were your credentials as a conservative, if any??????
I've told you what I'm telling you. I've given you detailed supporting materials for what I'm telling you. The best you can do is feign confusion (as quoted above) and then proceed as quoted below.
I do read your materials, generally. They don't rebut anything. Your post don't rebut anything. You are putting your fingers in your ear, closing your eyes and shouting "Lalalalalala, I can't hear you. Everything was an accident."
Not good. Not good at all. The worst part is that you are doing creation/ID that much worse than most of its proponents, including its leading lights Sarfati, Gish, Dembski, and now Coulter, etc.
Seems most of the rebutting going on here against us and Ann is just name-calling :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.