universal values?

[dilute micro]

From The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins:



Considering that Gould and Eldredge were talking about "relatively small morphological differences separated closely related species" then 60,000 years for the evolution of an elephant sized creature from a mouse sized creature rather major in comparison. But either way it's a geological blink of the eye.

And? Who disagrees that "geologically" it's a blink of an eye? We're back to the reason this thing I keep talking about this thing with pe matters. ...only you don't realize it.

Maybe someday you'll put all this together.

 

[Knotted]

And? Who disagrees that "geographically" it's a blink of an eye? We're back to the reason this thing I keep talking about with pe matters. ...only you don't realize it.

Maybe someday you'll put all this together.

Geological not geographical.

 

[dilute micro]

Geological not geographical.

I know I caught it.

 

[Knotted]

And no I'm not putting your argument together. That's something you are going to have to do.

 

[Knotted]

I know I caught it.

Fair dos.

 

[dilute micro]

Most times I try to proof read my posts. Sometimes I'll let it slide and hope nobody sees it.

 

[Knotted]

No worries.

 

[Knotted]

lol you're forgetting the part where non-creationists say the same things and ask the same questions.

Come on. Which "non-creationists"? Where?

 

[Knotted]

fyi, I showed Gould could say one thing to one group of people and say the opposite to others.

Actually this is total bullshit considering that Gould was famous and almost unique in that he would typically write for both popular and specialist audiences at the same time.

The best quote mines are actually in the New York Review of Books - not some obscure journal. Do you want me to show them?

 

[dilute micro]

Come on. Which "non-creationists"? Where?

Well Gould and Eldredge for starters. They aren't creationists. pe was developed based on the fossil record and the issues with what wasn't being found compared to what was expected to be found according to darwinian gradualism. Remember Darwin's excuse was that people simply hadn't dug up enough fossils yet. Well somebody had to come up with something.

Why do you think only creationists ask tough questions about darwinism?

 

[dilute micro]

Actually this is total bullshit considering that Gould was famous and almost unique in that he would typically write for both popular and specialist audiences at the same time.

The best quote mines are actually in the New York Review of Books - not some obscure journal. Do you want me to show them?

No it's not bullshit - its reality.

He told his peers transitional fossils are rare - he told the public they're found often.

 

[Knotted]

Not "darwinian gradualism". Be precise - phyletic gradualism. This is a difference between Eldredge and Gould on the one hand and creationists who quote mine Eldredge and Gould on the other. The two are not the same.

Secondly you are mixing two issues. The gaps in the fossil record on the one hand and patterns in the fossil record on the other. Two different points.

 

[Knotted]

No it's not bullshit - its reality.

He told his peers transitional fossils are rare - he told the public they're found often.

Where?

 

[dilute micro]

The best quote mines are actually in the New York Review of Books - not some obscure journal. Do you want me to show them?

What's your deal with "quote mining". If we're talking about people having said one thing and then another then of course producing quotes for our discussion seems a reasonable thing to do.

If you have a personal collection of fav quotes then by all means go ahead and lets get it over with.

 

[Knotted]

What's your deal with "quote mining". If we're talking about people having said one thing and then another then of course producing quotes for our discussion seems a reasonable thing to do.

If you have a personal collection of fav quotes then by all means go ahead and lets get it over with.

I don't know, I just thought if we are going to selectively quote Gould out of context in order to make him out as an anti-darwininian, I thought I could do it better than you can. It's fun game to play, and it looked like you were floundering. Do you need any help?

 

[dilute micro]

Where?

Check page 10 of this thread.

 

[Knotted]

Check page 10 of this thread.

How about you read the entire article that IMR sited. Here it is:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

How about you read this part in particular:

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."

Is it perhaps possible that what you imagine is a contradiction is in fact no such thing? Is it perhaps you are confusing discussion about transitional forms at different levels of evolution - species, genera, phyla etc? Is it perhaps possible that you didn't read carefully?

 

[Knotted]

This is the advantage of linking to the actual papers/articles in question. You can actually improve your understanding rather than have to puzzle out what some out of context quote means. This is the problem of getting all your info off creationist websites.

 

[dilute micro]

Not "darwinian gradualism". Be precise - phyletic gradualism. This is a difference between Eldredge and Gould on the one hand and creationists who quote mine Eldredge and Gould on the other. The two are not the same.

Secondly you are mixing two issues. The gaps in the fossil record on the one hand and patterns in the fossil record on the other. Two different points.

And you're showing you still don't understand pe....



"patterns in the fossil record" - what are you talking about, or what are you saying I'm talking about?

 

[dilute micro]

How about you read the entire article that IMR sited. Here it is:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

How about you read this part in particular:


Is it perhaps possible that what you imagine is a contradiction is in fact no such thing? Is it perhaps you are confusing discussion about transitional forms at different levels of evolution - species, genera, phyla etc? Is it perhaps possible that you didn't read carefully?

Knotted, it's the "larger groups" he's also talking about in the quotes I responded with.

That's the whole point.

 

[Knotted]

Punctuation and stasis is a pattern in the fossil record. No?

 

[Knotted]

Knotted, it's the "larger groups" he's also talking about in the quotes I responded with.

That's the whole point.

No it isn't.

 

[Knotted]

No it isn't.

And in any case how would you know? You haven't read the articles, just the little quotes you find on creationist websites.

 

[dilute micro]

Punctuation and stasis is a pattern in the fossil record. No?

And how am I mixing the two?

I'm not sure you're following me and now it seems you may be off again on something else you thunk up.

 

[dilute micro]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. You have no clue what you're talking about. That's the meaning of transitional forms.

 

[dilute micro]

And in any case how would you know? You haven't read the articles, just the little quotes you find on creationist websites.

lol how do you know what I've read? I'm a big fan of Gould.

 

[Knotted]

Yes it is. You have no clue what you're talking about. That's the meaning of transitional forms.

Well it obviously needn't be. Read the passage again.

 

[Knotted]

lol how do you know what I've read? I'm a big fan of Gould.

True I don't know what you've read. Unlike phil and gorski you are a total idiot. It's unlikely that you would understand what you read anyway. I can tell when they haven't read something.

 

[Knotted]

And how am I mixing the two?

I'm not sure you're following me and now it seems you may be off again on something else you thunk up.

Patterns. Gaps. Two different things. It's difficult to make it any simpler. Sorry.

 

[dilute micro]

Patterns. Gaps. Two different things. It's difficult to make it any simpler. Sorry.

Oh I see....you're way ahead of me.