Barbarian said:
Well, let's take a look again (6days has been repeatedly reminded that what he posted is a lie, but let's show him again)
"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."*
Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260
Barbarian must not realize that Collin Patterson, who I quoted, was a committed evolutionist.*
This is what he said...
"Collin Patterson, paleontologist said "If I knew of any, (evolutionary transitions) fossil or living, I would certainly have included them (in my book) . You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
......
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”*I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
.......
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."
Barbarian said:
You have been repeatedly shown that Gould never said that there are no transitionals.
Nice strawman. You should read slower.*
Barbarian said:
Even honest creationists admit that there are abundant transitionals
As Kurt Wise explains, it depends on your beliefs and how you define things. In the article you quoted, *he says "...has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated*
equilibrium theory. "
.......
"There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model willcome an explanation of
stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."
Barbarian. ... as you know the creationist model is rapid adaptation. Organisms change. We can breed dogs from large size down to miniature size. We can call the medium size dog a transitional..... and it is, depending on definitions. But the medium size 'transitional' dog has nothing to do with your common ancestry beliefs.*
From God's Word we know He created the marine animals and birds on day 5God created the land animals on day 6.*
Gen. 1
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21*And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
On the following day ... God created the land animals.... formed man from the dust..formed Eve from Adams rib.*