Replies

Contrary to the expectations of evolutionary theory, the fossil record is replete with complex transitions and new designs whereas simple transitions (intermediates) are rare. Evolutionary theory would expect the opposite to be true and to be reflected in the fossil record.

Not telling us everything, is he?

Punctuated Equilibrium has been around for thirty years. Why is Richard Deem feigning ignorance of a major paradigm in evolutionary theory that nicely explains what he claims is unexplained?

He should have footnoted the PE stuff, I'll grant you. The annoying thing about PE to a creavo is that IT comes off as the shucking and jiving you accuse Deem of. It is 'How the fossle record can look just like Creationism and still be the result of Naturalistic Evolution". I would be interested to know how PE fossils would look any different from Creationism.

PE is an attempt to explain why the fossil record is 9X% contradictory to classical Darwinism. My biggest knock against it is that if such rapid change occured as frequently as postulated by the idea, we should be observing new FAMILIES in just a few centuries.

If PE is is the explanation, why isn't it happening now? Why is macroevolution always happening somewhere else? Creationsim has an explanation, naturalism does not, at least not a good one.

Punctuated Equilibrium has been around for thirty years.

Yup, it was one more evolutionist excuse for not providing any proof of its predictions. Gould broke with neo-Darwinism because of the total impossibility of gradual evolution being true. Of course, there is no way to tell if punctuated equilibrium ever happened, and that is why Gould and Eldredge made up that nonsense. However, science has discredited many of its assumptions. The claim that evolution takes place in small isolated groups is ridiculous. With bad mutations occurring much more often than good mutations (in fact no one has ever shown a definitively good mutation which added genetic material to a species) the group would be quickly destroyed by the inbreeding long before a good mutation ever happened.

The problem with punk-eek though goes even further than that. It is ridiculous enough to postulate that a whole group of individuals would gradually mutate and transform themselves into a totally new species as Darwinism claims. However, to postulate that a whole group of individuals would suddenly acquire a whole group of favorable mutations which would transform the whole group into a new species is totally ridiculous (and this is the only way it could happen since if only one individual transformed itself who would it mate with?).