Summations Only

Bs'dDo you believe in very fast evolution?

Bs'dNo it would not, because then the precambrium suddenly isn't the precambrium anymore.

But it would then be out of order with the other layers.

Like the rate required to generate the present level of diversity in human DNA from Adam and Eve a mere 6,000 years ago? That rate, several hundred times greater than the real (measured) rate is indeed impossible.
Also the rate of ERV insertions into our DNA over that time interval would be impossible.Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Fast evolution?You want fast evolution, try Woodmorappe, the creationist:

As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

This is pretty silly. This is claiming that the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man took place since the Babel incident, which is usually placed after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago. The change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of several hundred times as rapid as scientists posit for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all; now they have not only proposed such a change themselves, but see it happening several hundreds of times faster and in reverse!What a joke! But then, that's creation "science" for you.

Well, how many do you need?Darwin said they were 'required'? I don't recall that notion. I hope you realize that you just wasted a paragraph. Well, then, just prove those theories wrong. Making unsupported assertions isn't going to cut it. All this is just complaining. More whining. Please give us something other than assertions. And your post is all assertion. But not fascinating or amazing.

Bs'dSo what you are saying is: Gould, Eldredge, and all other evolutionists cited in my quotes they are wrong when they say that the fossil record shows STASIS, and not evolution.Sorry for having a hard time to accept that.

Actually, it never was the precambrium. It was, and is, the 'Precambrian'.Perhaps if we reword that notion, you will understand: "what if we found a Precambrian rabbit?"

Bs'dAnd that's a claim made all the time by evo's when the facts don't agree with the theory.

Bs'dSo for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved?

Actually, what CS is saying is that you are wrong when you think that this is all that Gould and Eldredge said. What they are saying is that the fossil record does not show gradualism alone.

I cannot fathom what you are saying here.Please try again.

Helo everybody, I am new here and I would like to add some points here. I think the problem with your conclusion (no evolution in fossil record) is that you missinterpreted quotes. I will show you how.Gould, Eldredge and others talk about species to species transitions. About exact speciation and fossil record which shows these events. Speciation on species level is called especially by creationist as microevolution. The macroevolution; however, is what creationist deny. Macroevolution is simply microevolution + time. In other words it is evolution among higher taxa - genera (this is still acceptable among creationist), family, orders, etc.What is generally missing in fossil record is evidence for microevolution - speciation events. The evidence for macroevolution is on the other hand abundant in fossil record.We don't need evidence for microevolution / speciation (it would be nice - and it is nice in many cases, but we don't need it to prove microevolution is real). Speciation on species level has been proven more than 100 years ago. There is a lot of evidence from nature and also from lab that speciation works. That is why microevolution is acceptable (they have no choice) among creationist.You qouted Mr. Gould. Let me qoute him too: Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyIn other words fossil record shows macroevolution but microevolution is generally lacking. Generally lacking doesn't mean is missing completely! And donesn't mean there is NO (micro)evolution but ONLY statis.It shows statis of species but the evolution of genera, families, orders etc.That is why your conclusion - fossils show no evolution - is wrong.In fact I wouldn't throw away gradualism at all. Because as can be seen in fossil record (in my opinion). More complete fossil record more gradualism we see. Less complete fossil record we se (aparent ??) statis.

I asked first. Aren't those quotes arguing against gradualism, not evolution?--Percy

All those guys are talking about evolution of paleo-species and gradualism. As we've all been trying to tell you. Not evolution life as a whole.We've tackled some of the quotes. Let's look at some key parts of the others

quote:

---

a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change

---

quote:

---

The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change

---

quote:

---

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion

---

quote:

---

In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another

---

quote:

---

The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition

---

quote:

---

nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution

---

quote:

---

The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism.

---

quote:

---

Darwin’s postulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology.

---

quote:

---

Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.

---

quote:

---

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record

---

All these guys were talking about their case against gradualism and the like. So really, all we have is a debate about the rate of evolution. Is it constant and very slow, or is it comparatively fast with periods of morphological stability? You mean, if the evidence was different we'd come to different conclusions? We're so awful. What do you mean? That no matter where we look in the fossil record, all we see are modern species?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.