Your lack of knowledge of the "scientific community" is laughably obvious in your question.
Evolutionists can't even agree on WHICH evolutionary process to subscribe.
Darwinian Evolution says that we evolved over long periods and barely perceptible incremental change.
Gouldian Evolution says we evolved in short, rapid bursts after long dormant periods known as "punctuated equilibrium".
In case you can't tell - these two "facts" are diametrically opposed to each other!!!
You guys can't even get your stories straight!!! Until you do, why don't you keep your mis-application of your pseudo-science to yourselves!
36 comments
Uh, buddy? I don't see much "diametric opposition" there. OH HEY STUFF CHANGED AT DIFFERENT RATES HOW AMAZING
Either way, you're still an idiot.
Your god said blessed are the peacemakers. Your god also said I bring not peace, but a sword.
In case you can't tell - these two "facts" are diametrically opposed to each other!!!
You guys can't even get your stories straight!!! Until you do, why don't you keep your mis-application of your pseudo-truth to yourselves!
Let's see if you can guess who first proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium'. I'll give you a clue; his initials were C.D., and he once took a sea voyage with Captain Fitzroy.
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." On the Origin of Species , 5th ed., p. 551.
Your lack of knowledge of the "scientific community" is laughably obvious in your question.
Christians can't even agree on WHICH (un)intelligent design process to subscribe.
Young Earth Christianity says that the earth was greated 6000 years old inside of a black hole.
Old Earth Christianity says the earth was created millions of years ago in the center of the Univers.
In case you can't tell - these two "facts" are diametrically opposed to each other!!!
You guys can't even get your stories straight!!! Until you do, why don't you keep your mis-application of your pseudo-science to yourselves!
Fixed
"Gouldian Evolution"
Evolution works by several mechanisms (including some we may not have even discovered yet) and at speeds varying due to different environmental factors. A population will probably not evolve both of the ways you mentioned at the same time, but there's no reason that it can't do so at separate times.
In case you can't tell - these two "facts" are diametrically opposed to each other.
No, they aren't. Mutations passes along would cause a sudden rapid burst after long periods of slow change. Different species took longer to change.
Nothing conflicting there at all.
@ atrasicarius
I'm not so sure that's what they want. It seems to me they rather enjoy being idiots.
you're right. I will now convert to christianity because evolution was obviously conflicted and wrong. But wait, should I go join the baptists, methodists, catholics, lutherans, trinitarians, or episcopalians?
Diametrically opposed???
What the hell are you talking about? When you consider that the "short, rapid bursts" your describing are short on a geological timescale, you'll realize that even those "short, rapid bursts" take a long time. And why can't both be true? They seem compatible to me. Evolution happening at different rates doesn't mean it still doesn't involve gradual changes and a long period of time.
Yeah, some scientists might disagree over how much the rate of evolution differs or how important something like punctuated equilibrium is, but they aren't advocating two completely different processes. No one is seriously arguing that evolution always occurs at a constant rate or that it doesn't take a long time. They might argue about how to view evolution, but there isn't any debate about the fact that evolution happened. Ultimately, scientists are going to disagree with each other, and some do. But this is such a minor disagreement all things considered, that just by typing this paragraph in the first place, I've probably over-emphasized it.
Darwinian evolution is not "diametrically opposed" to punctuated equilibrium. (And who the hell refers to punctuated equilibrium as "Gouldian Evolution"? Why not "Eldridgian Evolution"? Gould and Eldridge called it punctuated equilibrium, they didn't refer to it as a new type of evolution, because they were still working within the framework of Darwin's theory of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould spent a good portion of his life writing about Darwinian evolution.)
Seriously, this stuff really isn't that hard to understand!!!
The answer is that both types of evolution occur at different times and in different conditions, when the environment is stable, evolutionary change is slow, when the environment changes quickly, evolution can and must move quickly so that species can adapt to the changing conditions.
but even the quick bursts of evolution are only comparatively quick, they still take many generations.
@louislois:
The term evolutionist dates back at least to the 1870s, when T.H. Huxley used it in a letter to Nature , volume 1 no less. And it is still in use today:
A test of the chromosomal theory of ecotypic speciation in Anopheles gambiae "The role of chromosomal inversions in speciation has long been of interest to evolutionists. Recent quantitative modeling has stimulated reconsideration of previous conceptual models for chromosomal speciation. Anopheles gambiae, the most important vector of human malaria, carries abundant chromosomal inversion polymorphism nonrandomly associated with ecotypes that mate assortatively." http://www.pnas.org/content/105/8/2940.abstract
Also would you also tune out the following?
"To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function" -- R. Dawkins, The God Delusion .
"No evolutionist - and certainly not Darwin - ever argued that natural selection is based on chance" -- Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True .
"Which triplets code for which amino acids? Also - more interesting to an evolutionist - is the code the same for all organisms?" - John Maynard-Smith, The Theory of Evolution .
Ernst Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist .
Probably Poe, but...
Those two are just as much diametrically opposed to each other as "humans move by walking" and "humans move by running". Sure, you can't do them both at the exact same time, but often when you are out running, you might walk bits of the way, between the running.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
