Expelled? Go to the movies!

csuguy

New member
I suppose some full disclosure might be helpful here: even though I hadn't looked at the original Gould and Eldredge papers in a while, I have more than a passing familiarity with their work (and them; I had several discussions, some of them fairly intense with the former, and worked for years in the same department as the latter). Not that this means you can't be right and I can't be wrong, but you're going to have to do more than simply repeat your claims....

I appreciate your detailed response. You are right that I have not directly read his work - and I should go and read his work (any references appreciated). What I know is mostly what I learned from my Anthropology class. Perhaps I misunderstood my professor, but he presented the theory like I have thus far described. Seeings as how has his PhD in evolutionary anthropology I assume he knows what he is talking about - but he could be wrong. I will have to find Gould's work and read it for myself - when I get some free time any way.

Ryan
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
He only says that because he's envious. He went to see Spiderman eight times. ;)
I'm proud to be a geek. That is not the same as a nerd. Also, I only went to see Spider-Man 4 times.

P.S.
Even the spell check doesn't recognize Spiderman as a word.
 

Prisca

Pain Killer
Super Moderator
This is one of those statements that inspire the "Lying for Jesus" label for creationists, Becky. Do you really, really, really fail to see the fundamental difference between these two statements?

"Just because the bones aren't evolving doesn't mean the rest of the critter isn't."

"The rest of the critter must be evolving even if we can't see it."

To me, the first statement is true whereas the second statement is false. Please, set me straight!
I guess you didn't think it was funny....;)
 

laughsoutloud

New member
CSU Guy Writes (re: Gould)
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I in no way implied that his work some how supported creationism or invalidates evolution - what I was saying is that his version of evolution is starkly different from the standard model of evolution that is typically taught. He disagrees with the core element of that model - the process by which new species emerge. He doesn't dismiss the idea that small mutations throughout time have the potential to create new species - but he does NOT accept this as the primary source of evolutionary change.
No, your perspective distorts the situation. What Gould did was to look at the evidence (for example, the Burgess Shale), and propose some changes - rather than the idea of a continuous gradient of change (that is, a constant rate of change), he recognized that the record supports stasis punctuated by multi-million year periods of change.

His never separated himself from the idea of evolution - he simply proposed a refinement to the process based on the data.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
CSUguy writes
Well, as Ben Stein stated in his new movies (which I watched tonight - excellent ) - you are entitled to freewill so long as you are on the right side of the wall (paraphrase). Regardless of much faster/slower Gould's theory, the fact remains that his model requires a new process - a process which is not compatible with the old theory.
Again, this is simply not true. Gould was an evolutionist, and there is nothing here that identified a new process. If anything, it simply suggests that evolution is in response to some change - perhaps in the environment, perhaps the result of a "critical mass" of smaller change.

Again, the point to note here is that he was more closely aligning the theory with the data - which still does not support creationism in any guises - there "rapid" speciation events took millions of years, and in any event, are contained in fossil histories that cover hundreds of millions of years.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
CSUguy writes:
Ignorance is bliss. You obviously have not studied very much theology - or Church History.
Actually, I have an MDiv, with some additional graduate work. I have studied quite a bit of church history, and I remain convinced that, even if an individual group thinks that there is some critical distinction (for example, as you make between some protestant groups and the Catholic church, Paul teaches us that there is in fact 1 faith, 1 Lord, 1 baptism. - right? Do you recall Roman's 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." I don't think you have any Biblical basis to separate yourself from Catholics - even if you disagree with their theology.

Likewise, evolutionists accept descent with modification, random mutation, genetic drift, natural selection. The rest is details in the process of being worked out.
 
Last edited:

laughsoutloud

New member
Yes, please show us. Maybe something from the fossil record? That would be great! :chuckle:

Here you go - evolution in action.

And from the fossil record, A Firm Step From Water to Land.

Sorry for the long quote, but it is worth reading, as is the entire article
It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1). Ichthyostega4 and Acanthostega5 retain true fish tails with fin rays but are nevertheless unambiguous tetrapods with limbs that bear digits6.

Panderichthys7 is vaguely crocodile-shaped and, unlike the rather conventional osteolepiform fishes farther down the tree, looks like a fish–tetrapod transitional form. The shape of the pectoral fin skeleton and shoulder girdle are intermediate between those of osteolepiforms and tetrapods, suggesting that Panderichthys was beginning to ‘walk’, but perhaps in shallow water rather than on land8. Panderichthys lived about 385 million years ago at the end of the Middle Devonian; Ichthyostega and Acanthostega lived about 365 million years ago during the Late Devonian. However, the earliest fragmentary tetrapods from Scotland9,10 and Latvia9 date back to perhaps 376 million years ago, so the morphological gap between fish and tetrapod corresponds to a time gap of under 10 million years.

Into this gap drops Tiktaalik. The fossils are earliest Late Devonian in age, making them at most 2 million or 3 million years younger than Panderichthys. With its crocodile-shaped skull, and paired fins with fin rays but strong internal limb skeletons, Tiktaalik also resembles Panderichthys quite closely. The closest match, however, is not to Panderichthys but to another animal, Elpistostege, from the early Late Devonian of Canada. Elpistostege is known only from two partial skulls and a length backbone, but it has long been recognized as fish– tetrapod intermediate11,12, probably closer to tetrapods than is Panderichthys. This impression is now confirmed: the authors1,2 demonstrate convincingly that Elpistostege and Tiktaalik fall between Panderichthys and the earliest tetrapods on the phylogenetic tree.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
And one more example of evolution in action - pretty cool:

Still Just a lizard
Now here's something really cool, though: these lizards have evolved cecal valves. What those are are muscular ridges in the gut that allow the animal to close off sections of the tube to slow the progress of food through them, and to act as fermentation chambers where plant material can be broken down by commensal organisms like bacteria and nematodes — and the guts of Pod Mrcaru P. sicula are swarming with nematodes not found in the guts of their Pod Kopiste cousins.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Did you say, "speculation?"
You are pretty clever. Can you respond to the arguments themselves?

Evolution is an every day activity. It is pretty powerful, even according to creationists, if evolution generated the diversity we see around us from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark! Think about it - from 2500 bc to the time writers began cataloging the world around us (say 1,000 years?) all the diversity we see - in fact,this is a speed and power of evolution that far exceeds anything the mainstream scientific community believes it is capable of. Of course, there is no actual evidence that anything of the sort happened - but it is odd that on the one hand, creationists believe evolution is so much more powerful that the science supports - and yet won't admit that evolution actually acciomplished the much more modest tasks attributed to it by science.

And in the links I gave you, creation of novel features, fossil evidence of multiple transitional fossils - no response except an attempt at humor?
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
You are pretty clever. Can you respond to the arguments themselves?

Evolution is an every day activity. It is pretty powerful, even according to creationists, if evolution generated the diversity we see around us from a few thousand "kinds" on the ark! Think about it - from 2500 bc to the time writers began cataloging the world around us (say 1,000 years?) all the diversity we see - in fact,this is a speed and power of evolution that far exceeds anything the mainstream scientific community believes it is capable of. Of course, there is no actual evidence that anything of the sort happened - but it is odd that on the one hand, creationists believe evolution is so much more powerful that the science supports - and yet won't admit that evolution actually acciomplished the much more modest tasks attributed to it by science.

And in the links I gave you, creation of novel features, fossil evidence of multiple transitional fossils - no response except an attempt at humor?
FYI, I believe in adaptation. All created, living things, were designed to adapt to their environments.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
FYI, I believe in adaptation. All created, living things, were designed to adapt to their environments.
So that would be no, you won't respond to the arguments. Evolution has been demonstrated (both what you call micro and macro) in the lab and in the fossil record (multiple transitionals in tetrapod evolution, for example). The adaptations driven by evolution are robust, but no where robust enough to support the kind of speciation and diversity creationists claim occurred after the Flood. So snearing dismissal of what scientists demonstrate evolution does all the time, and credulous pretending that evolution accomplished things after the Flood that simply could not have happened.

Willful ignorance, masked as piety, is still ignorance - and it is also dangerous, because in order to succeed, you have to paint the search for truth as a bad thing, and the people who search for truth as liars and deceivers.
 

laughsoutloud

New member
Oh the irony. :doh:
Kinight, I have seen NO evidence for the flood, special creation or a 6,000 year old earth. None.

I have seen a lot of apologetics, explaining how a certain subset of the data could be made to fit certain interpretations of the Bible.

I have seen lots of criticisms of science (but criticisms of science do not establish the YEC perspective - only a coherent theory that fits the evidence could do that).

I see lots of people pretending that science speaks with a unified voice, and has to defend a dogmatic position. It just does not work that way.

In the last few hundred years, we've gone from thinking that maggots spontaneously generate from rotting meat to studying the elementary particles of the universe. Along the way, we've come up with lots of ideas to explain what we see. Some of those we call laws (they are really just explanations of how things work that no-one doubts), some we call theories (pretty much universal acceptance, but still subject to revision as we learn more), some are hypothesis (explanations for observations that have not yet gained widespread acceptance).

Everything we know in science is stuff we thought up - because books like the Bible ended up not being very helpful when it came to the sciences. This is a fairly new thought - only some hundreds of years old. But one thing we can be sure of, so far, things in the natural world that can be measured or studied have had natural causes (so for example, no storehouses of snow, in spite of what it says in Job).

Does that mean that the world cannot be 6,000 years old? That all species couldn't have been created, pretty much as they are a few days later? That there was no global flood some 3,500 years ago?

Yes, pretty much. We can never go back there, unless we want to ignore the clear evidence of the natural world. This is what creationism boils down to - a return to ignorance in the name of piety. I am not going there, and I hope you don't go there either.
 
Last edited:
Top