[PenultimateManStanding]

So punctuated equilibrium is an observation, it is presumably then an observation of the facts in the rocks. The theory of evolution needs to accomodate the facts. We should see more of the eohippus to modern horse type sequences than we actually do, if gradualism is the dominant factor for change.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'S')o punctuated equilibrium is an observation, it is presumably then an observation of the facts in the rocks. The theory of evolution needs to accomodate the facts. We should see more of the eohippus to modern horse type sequences than we actually do, if gradualism is the dominant factor for change.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'W')e should see more of the eohippus to modern horse type sequences than we actually do, if gradualism is the dominant factor for change.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'W')e should see more of the eohippus to modern horse type sequences than we actually do, if gradualism is the dominant factor for change.

[PenultimateManStanding]

Let me explain the significance of the debate for whoever hasn't studied this issue. The mainstream favored theory has it that evolution is a result of natural selection of favored outcomes to random genetic mutations accumulating for Billions of Years. Critics of this mainstream orthodoxy point out conceptual flaws in the theory. One such criticism is that such a theory should predict a certain kind of fossil record which is not seen in reality. What is seen instead is a record of species which remain constant for long periods followed by new species and the disappearance, rather suddenly, of the old species. The difficulty arises because random mutation is now deficient as an explanation, but the mainstream conceptual map does not allow for intelligence anywhere but in the mind of man (this is due to the oppressive effects of theology felt by intelligent people in the 19th century). The answer is to start opening our eyes to the obvious display's of intelligence by nature outside of us humans. Human intelligence didn't arise out of nothing. There must have been a long history of all sorts of amazing intelligences that have evolved through billions of years. And the only thing that's constant for all these different species is that they have a DNA blueprint.

[DefiledEngine]

As far as I know, fossilization is a difficult process (the body parts of the animal may easily break down, and it must be left in such sediment as to make an impression) and it's quite amazing that we already have so many pretty clear cut gradual transitional fossil records (for example: dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, early hominids to homo sapiens).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The difficulty arises because random mutation is now deficient as an explanation, but the mainstream conceptual map does not allow for intelligence anywhere but in the mind of man (this is due to the oppressive effects of theology felt by intelligent people in the 19th century). The answer is to start opening our eyes to the obvious display's of intelligence by nature outside of us humans.

[threadbear]

I am really surprised at posters who don't give Penultimate Man Standing some credit for his point of view. He is clearly one of the most intelligent and definitely the most intellectually curious poster on the board. Those with a scientific bent should have more intellectual curiosity and less inclination to condemn novel points of view. Darwin is not the be all and end all. For God sakes, the dude's been dead for years. Have our theories of evolution fossilized? Shouldn't they be reexamined with open minds to see if they are fit to survive?

YOu owe me one PMS--

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', 'w')e already have so many pretty clear cut gradual transitional fossil records (for example: dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, early hominids to homo sapiens).

[DefiledEngine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '
')No point in looking at the Big Picture here because it adds nothing to answering the questions about speciation.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DefiledEngine', '
')What? The fact that there are transitional fossils doesn't show that speciation can occur over longer periods of time, probably as a result of mutations?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')YOu owe me one PMS--

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I') am really surprised at posters who don't give Penultimate Man Standing some credit for his point of view. He is clearly one of the most intelligent and definitely the most intellectually curious poster on the board. Those with a scientific bent should have more intellectual curiosity and less inclination to condemn novel points of view. Darwin is not the be all and end all. For God sakes, the dude's been dead for years. Have our theories of evolution fossilized? Shouldn't they be reexamined with open minds to see if they are fit to survive?

YOu owe me one PMS--

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '[')
But I keep quoting Darwin which shows that PMS point is already covered by Darwin.

[DefiledEngine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You missed the point. Of course the long term picture shows gradual changes as you pointed out. But if you get down to the species level, there is a mysterious dearth of supporting evidence for smooth transitions.

[PenultimateManStanding]

There needs to be a specific answer to the question how one species metamorphoses into another (with simultaneous major changes). The overall picture is not the issue here. The gradual transition from Dinosaurs to Birds is a grand idea and seems to be true, but it fails to answer my questions.

[threadbear]

Penultimate, I think Defiled is conceding major points to you here. Bravo Man. Both of you have evolved--go forth and multiply. But not too much--That's a whole other thread.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'G')o forth and multiply.

[EdF]

Here are some good articles on the relationship of "intelligent design" to science.

- Ed

[Z]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EdF', '[')url=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083005N.shtml]Here[/url] are some good articles on the relationship of "intelligent design" to science.

[KiddieKorral]

Abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things.