“Show me a person who believes in Noah’s ark and I will show you a Trump voter,”

Need to repost.. My post got merged in the original quote.. doh.

Gould of course never claimed that there are no transitional forms.. That's a creationist lie that been circulating for years.
(Sadly, Creationists have a bad habit of lying)

Here, in Gould's own words ..

"Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution, but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape�s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?

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.

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. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg."

So you tell me.. Is your misrepresentation of Gould by "design or stupidity"..? lol

 

It's a moot point now because Gould is dead and evolution has been proven as scientifically & mathematically impossible.
Darwin didn't know what he was talking about. Punctuated equilibrium was an attempt to rescue Darwin but the entire house of cards fell to the electronic microscope and the mathematical complexity of deoxyribonucleic acid consisting of 20 amino acids on strands of 250 arranged just so. Darwinism is now just a religion for those who need such a religion as that. I predict that Deep Time will shortly be returned to Indian Hinduism having been borrowed by pagan Greeks and repackaged as a leftover by atheists during the dark days of the Enlightenment.

 

The interpretation of Gould and Eldredge is completely understandable, as is their frustration with those making it. They were staunch evolutionists, atheists, communists, or at least Gould was. But they were excusing the absence of highly necessary transitional evidence as lost forever due to circumstances beyond their control. "It all happened so fast!" They may as well have said, "God did it," or "the Devil made me do it," as they got it from both sides, again understandably so.

They gave good reason to forever reject evolutionism, and that was a treasonous thing to do, albeit unintentional. No one wanting real evidence would be satisfied with such large gaps in the evolutionary paradigm. Such rapid changes with no direct evidence of connection was essentially an appeal to untraceable miracle. A lot of creationists had a field day. Though the authors of the theory remained faithful evolutionists, their arguments and excuses would mean little to truth seekers.

 

Evolution has been proven to be scientifically impossible, huh..?
Well then.. By all means, please present for us all the tests that were conducted and the peer reviewed science journals that they were published in that shows that evolution is impossible..
I shall await your evidence with baited breath.. Good luck with that.. lol

 

Unfortunately, Creationists have no interest in "seeking truth". All most creationists want is someone to reinforce their religious beliefs and tell them that they aren't foolish for believing in such nonsense. Creationists are a classic case of confirmation bias..
If they were really interested in truth, then they'd read science journals which lay out in great detail the mountains of evidence for evolution. Instead, they'd rather visit religious websites run by known charlatans, most of which have no scientific credentials in any field related to evolution.

If you really want to know "the truth", then try going to court..
You see creationists can (and do) lie through their teeth all the time when giving seminars and debates because they know there is no penalty for lying in such places.. But they cant get away with that crap in court..
This is why evolution wins every court case its in.. Because in COURT, only evolution has any evidence.. In Court, creationism gets exposed as the nonsense everyone knows that it is..

For example.. Go back to the Dover PA Intelligent Design trial in 2005..
In that trial, you'll find expert testimony on the fossil record By Curator of The Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Kevin Padian where he lays out in great detail why the fossil record supports evolution and ONLY evolution.
Now, who was the creationists fossil expert who was called as a rebuttal witness to Padian's testimony..?
NNE!!! That's who.. The creationists had no fossil expert to testify.. Padian's evidence went unchallenged..
Why..? Because IN COURT, creationism cant lie.. So it had no evidence to present, and no witnesses to call.
That's how bankrupt creationism is.. Also..
Now look at the McLean V Arkansas case back in the 1980s.. The Creationists in that trial called their own expert witness to testify. His name was "Chandra Wickramasinghe". However...
Under cross examination, Wickramasinghe was asked if the earth could be 6 to 10 thousand years old as creationists claimed it is, and UNDER OATH Wickramasinghe said "NO!! It HAD to be millions of years old..
Now, That wasn't the evolution witness.. that was the expert FOR the creationists.. Their OWN WITNESS (once under oath) made it perfectly clear at trial that the Creationism, global floods, and the young earth model was scientifically impossible.. This so shocked the judge, that he made deliberate reference to Wickramasinghe's testimony in his decision.
Here, read it..

"Perhaps Dr. Wickramasinghe was called as a witness because he was generally critical of the theory of evolution and the scientific community, a tactic consistent with the strategy of the defense. Unfortunately for the defense, he demonstrated that the simplistic *1270 approach of the two model analysis of the origins of life is false. Furthermore, he corroborated the plaintiffs' witnesses by concluding that "no rational scientist" would believe the earth's geology could be explained by reference to a worldwide flood or that the earth was less than one million years old."

So there you have it..
You know that creationism doesn't have a leg to stand on when its own expert witness under oath at trial admits that it cant possibly be true.. lol

 

It is linked in my signature. Do the math: 20 to the 250th power. 20 amino acids selected an average of 250 just so in a strand of deoxyribonucleic acid. The leading computer scientist at Yale, an atheist Jew says that mathematically it is a waste of time & impossible.

 

Unfortunately for you, computer science is NOT biology..
His opinion is no more valid than my garbage mans.. And what he wrote there is NOT in a peer reviewed publication..
So try again.. lol

 

Those cases are obsolete & ID is not necessarily Biblical Creationists. Check out Stephen Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" & David Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays" & David Klinghoffer "Debating Darwin's Doubt."

 

I'm very familiar with Meyers work.. It was Meyer's Discovery Institute that got aughed out of Court in Dover Pa in 2005.
The judge looked at the alleged evidence and found it to be trash..
Which is why ID got its head handed to them on a platter.. lol

 

No one said that it was but evolution depends upon the mathematics of deoxyribonucleic acid & David Gelernter is a brilliant mathematician. No one refutes Gelernter & Claremont is a respected source. Gelernter is an atheist like Darwin.

Darwin is mathematically impossible.

 

You are living in the past. The new book is 2013. This is mathematics not jurisprudence.

You need to deal with the mathematics.

Gelernter takes a 150 link chain of deoxyribonucleic acid with 20 amino acids that is 20 to the 150th power. That, he says, is roughly 10 to the 195th power. It is thought that there are only 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe. This is schoolboy arithmetic.

 

Its not mathematics.. its trash..
ID continues to make the same deliberate errors on purpose..(which is why it simply self publishes its own nonsense rather than send it to a biology journal for peer review.
Simply put, ID ignores the concept of selection in regards to how things like DNA form.. They use a model under which attempts to portray the entire process as a random event, which of course anyone in molecular biology would know is incorrect.
Even all the way down on a molecular level, even DNA bonds can be selected for.. which makes all their alleged stats incorrect

 

There's an old saying in computer science. "garbage in, garbage out"
When you put the incorrect information in to start with, you get incorrect information out the other side..
In IDs case, that incorrect info gets pulled from their own rectums.. lol

 

Sorry, I added to the post. You are not thinking about deoxyribonucleic acid.

 

You know, you cannot hold a candle to Gelernter. With 10 to the 80th power atoms in the universe, your mathematics for Darwin is impossible.

 

Yes, actually i am.. Thats DNA.. which i just told you is not assembled "at random"..it too is also selected for..
Which renders ID's "mathematics" useless.

 

Now you are talking trash. If the deoxyribonucleic acid is not perfect, then you have mutations or loss of information and that is fatal. Math killed evolution.

 

You're a silly person.. You dont seem to want to accept the fact that math is NOT biology..
Gelernter may know math, but he doesn't know Jack about BIOLOGY.
Sure, if you simply look at how many bonds there are in a DNA strand, and assume that they assembled "at random", then yeah.. you'll get a very large intimidating number.. But the problem for Gelernter is that DNA doesnt assemble "at random".. It too is selected for.. Also, in DNA, you can get entire genes, or even entire Chromosomes that can duplicate and double the size of your DNA information in one event..
So knowing math is meaningless if you dont know jack poop about BIOLOGY..
Which is why ID is consistently laughed at by the science community.

 

Oh good grief..
DNA is NOT perfect.. NOT BY A LONG SHOT.
its riddled with copy errors.. Parasitic viral insertions.. Broken genes that no longer function..
ALL aspects of its evolutionary history.

 

Berlinski & Meyer are biologists & it is clear that you don't know anything about deoxyribonucleic acid.