Skip to comments.
Gould Strikes Back At Creationists
Indepedent.co.uk ^
| 4-09-2002
Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-384 next last
To: My2Cents
he's more than a bit of a pompous assArrogance, while annoying, does not nullify Gould's work or theories.
21
posted on
04/09/2002 11:58:51 AM PDT
by
Scully
To: My2Cents
Scientific theories can be wrong for decades. The Bible is wrong forever.
22
posted on
04/09/2002 11:58:53 AM PDT
by
jlogajan
To: My2Cents
A pompous ass who makes a lot of sense.
23
posted on
04/09/2002 11:59:11 AM PDT
by
stanz
To: JediGirl
There's a limerick about a man who dyed his whiskers green, then hid them behind a screen 'so that they could not be seen.' Twenty-some years after their spat first began, Gould and Dawkins both still need to explain what is the 'screen' hiding the fossil evidence for evolution. Maybe the reason we see no proof of evolution is because evolution didn't occur?
"Whatever happened to Occam's Razor?" is what the creationists are asking. And twenty-some years later, the best Gould and Dawkins can do is shout in unison: "Shut up!"
24
posted on
04/09/2002 11:59:17 AM PDT
by
JoeSchem
To: My2Cents
This is largely an issue involving "cross-cutting relationships." As in geology. Not in people.
25
posted on
04/09/2002 12:00:35 PM PDT
by
onedoug
To: My2Cents
. Their defense of evolution is less because of solid scientific evidence, and more because they're fighting for their lives to validate their entire professional careers. Any evidence for this claim?
To: My2Cents
The other guy was Niles Eldredge.
To: stanz
Actually, Gould is an extremely humorous writer and an avid baseball fan
who uses baseball as analogy is many of his writings."
So it is true...
They did clone George Will
28
posted on
04/09/2002 12:04:03 PM PDT
by
APBaer
To: jlogajan
The Bible is wrong forever. You're in trouble now ! Consider the history of Thomas Paine...
29
posted on
04/09/2002 12:05:02 PM PDT
by
jimt
To: My2Cents
the originators of the "Eve" theory, using mitocondrian DNA, which maintains that every human being on earth comes form a single female about 50,000 years ago
I thought the number was more like 200,000 years ago. They figured this by numbers of generations. The funny part is that the Creationist believe that the early humans lived for hundreds of years in our current calander system. So if the creationist believe in any kind of science, then the 200,000 figure would get moved back to a couple of million years based on the long live spans of early generations.
30
posted on
04/09/2002 12:05:03 PM PDT
by
SengirV
To: My2Cents
"You haven't refuted the assertion that Gould's theory is a convenient device to explain-away the lack of evidence in the fossil record for transitional forms. Gould doesn't know for sure; it's a way to prop up a sorry and tattered theory of origins."The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories. Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved
Rather than search for things that refute that which you don't believe, shouldn't you find proof for the things you do believe?
To: JediGirl
Gould is coming off as an atheist crank on a crusade. I like a lot of what Dawkins says except there is a place for G_d in my view of the universe. And evolutionary theory seems to have great holes in it. Great gaps in evolution.
32
posted on
04/09/2002 12:07:19 PM PDT
by
dennisw
To: Honcho Bongs
"The lack of a complete, end-to-end fossil record doesn't disprove Gould's theories.
Fossil creation is rare enough. To expect transitional stages to be found for a particular
species highlights a lack of comprehension of the scale of the times involved"
The saying that sums this up is:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
33
posted on
04/09/2002 12:08:37 PM PDT
by
APBaer
To: onedoug
It seems kinda funny that "creationists" would utilize the fossil record to advance that view, but scoff at the geology that gives rise to it. Human beings are quite capable of holding two, mutually-exclusive, beliefs at the same time, and believing in both whole-heartedly.
34
posted on
04/09/2002 12:09:53 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: My2Cents
but in quantum-like leaps, with new species, or changes to a specie, happening within a generation. Not quite. The changes would happen over several hundreds or thousands of years rather than hundreds of thousands or millions. There is no jump between species within a single generation mentioned anywhere in the theory.
35
posted on
04/09/2002 12:11:20 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: PatrickHenry
Cloaked. Lurking ... So when do you raise shields at charge phasers?
36
posted on
04/09/2002 12:13:14 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: JediGirl
"Punctuationists" say they read their theory from the fossil record. Actually, Gould originally claimed that their theory was derived from the theory of geographic speciation and concepts of group selection, so that they then "predicted" the discontinuous fossil record (one theory to prove another theory). Then they claimed the fossil record (which shows no intermediary forms) validated their "predictions" and therefore their theory.
Punctuated equilibrium is basically an attempt to down-play the lack of evidence in the fossils for phylogeny. It derives from a more "literal" reading of the fossil record.
So is punctuated equilibrium testable? Gould says that a series of fossils showing gradual development of an adaptation would refute punctuated equilibrium. This is a "no lose" situation that Gould has created here: if the fossils show systematic gaps, then the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution is "proven", but if the fossils show gradualism, then the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution is proven. In other words, evolution itself is no longer falsifiable! Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism are both now part of the evolutionists' grab-bag of conflicting theories as Gould now views punctuated equilibrium as an addition to evolutionary theory rather than an alternative.
In short: How to best explain away the gaps in the fossil record, without throwing doubt on the basic premise of evolution? The answer: "punctuated equilibrium." The whole exercise is intellectually dishonest, because it creates a loophole for a theory (evolution) in crisis without seriously questioning or testing the theory itself.
37
posted on
04/09/2002 12:13:21 PM PDT
by
My2Cents
To: Junior
at = and
38
posted on
04/09/2002 12:17:04 PM PDT
by
Junior
To: stanz
Actually, Gould is an extremely humorous writer and an avid baseball fan who uses baseball as analogy is many of his writings. Gould is an engaging writer. However, he is also very prone to bending facts to suit his predestined conclusion, as I quickly realized while reading his Mismeasure of Man.
He is, quite simply, an avid partisan, and he makes good money at it. As such, his conclusions are not to be trusted at face value.
I don't limit this skepticism to Gould, BTW, he just happens to be the person we're talking about.
39
posted on
04/09/2002 12:18:26 PM PDT
by
r9etb
To: JediGirl
Howdy
For doctor gould to presume to know of a certainty that evolution was not the means the Almighty used to create humanity and all living things is hubris on a grand scale.
In point of fact, for anyone to claim certainty as to the motive force behind creation, that individual must reach certitude in the absence of proof.
Belief in the absence of proof is religious faith, thus doctor gould is not practicing science, but religion, a faith based belief system in the nonexistence of God.
Truly perverse.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-384 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson