Summations Only

Your argument seems to rely on quoting real scientists out of context and then daydreaming that they mean what you want them to mean. Perhaps we should let them, in their own words, supply some context, and explain what they meant.---"In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record." --- Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):12-16."Our theory holds, as a defining statement, that ordinary allopatric speciation, unfolding gradually at microevolutionary scales, translates to punctuation in geological time." --- Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am - for I have become a major target of these practices." --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory"Stasis had continued to be ignored until Gould and I showed that such stability is a real aspect of life's history which must be confronted - and that, in fact, it posed no fundamental threat to the basic notion of evolution itself." --- Niles Eldredge, Time Frames"My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s. [...] this new picture is not un-Darwinian, let alone anti-Darwinian. [...] I confess that I am a true Darwinist." --- Nile Eldredge, Confessions of a Darwinist."Q: Does the fossil record provide evidence for the existence of transitional forms?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: Are there many such examples?
A: Yes, there are." --- Stephen Jay Gould, sworn testimony in McClean v. Arkansas."Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution as Fact and Theory"I think they [creationists] proceed by misquotation, by selective quotation, and by invoking supernatural intervention to produce the basic kinds of life, all of which are not only unscientific, but represent skill and rhetoric rather than science." --- Stephen Jay Gould, sworn testimony in McClean v. Arkansas.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well in that case there's a huge gap --- more of a bottomless abyss, really --- between the bit of Eliyahu's post where he quotes Gould and Eldredge, and the bit where he writes "So there we have it: NO evolution".He needs to fill that gap by explaining why the "implications" of Gould and Eldredge's work are in fact the exact opposite of what Gould and Eldredge thought they were: why Eliyahu concludes "So there we have it: NO evolution" and that their writing "rips apart the evolution theory" when they write "In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record" (Gould) and "My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s" (Eldredge).

Don't you ever worry that you might ... y'know ... end up burning in Hell while Satan spits the word LIAR! in your face for all eternity?Only if I was religious, and if I lied as much as you do, it would worry me.

Except that he's talking about the fossil record of one particular locale (the Bighorn Basin) and one particular time (the Early Eocene). Obviously he's not saying that there are no transitions to be found in the entire fossil record, he's not insane or a dirty stupid liar.

Oh, I think I can find a few evolutionists who would agree with RAZD that there's paleontological evidence for evolution. Like, oh, a few dozen national academies of science."Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU). What a dumb lie. Let's see what song paleontologists actually sing in unison, shall we?"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology According to the people who actually made up the PE theory, you are lying. Gould, for example, stated under oath in McLean v. Arkansas that there were many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, and said "So it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms."Hmm, who to believe about Gould's work, Gould himself, speaking under oath and penalty of perjury, or a creationist who keeps getting caught telling dumb lies?

You are lying about what Coyote said. That is not a quote from Coyote, you made it up. You are lying about what Coyote meant. That is not what he implied, you made that up. But you are a liar. And this is very evident: your lies are not subtle; you are, not to put too fine a point on it, not very good at lying. So if you don't want people to remark on what a shameless witless pointless liar you are, then you should stop lying.

This will not, of course, prevent me from pointing out your dumb lies.

So according to you the very scientists you're using as sources for your exercise in quotemining are liars and not to be trusted, Gould in particular perjuring himself on the witness stand.Well in that case, you should make that clear when you're quotemining them. For example, you could write:

You are lying. And we all know you're lying. You are lying. And we all know you're lying. You are lying. And we all know you're lying.---Now, what I don't understand is this. I know why you lied in the first place. It's because creationism can only be supported with lies, and because you're a filthy putrid stinking dirty liar. But why do you go on lying after you've been caught? When everyone knows you're lying? You're not going to deceive anyone, are you? Do you just take some perverse pleasure in falsehood, like a pig wallowing in its own filth?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

OK, so who to believe about paleontology? The layman Eliyahu, or the paleontologists?"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

You may have inadvertently told the truth --- it is almost certainly the case that nothing can disprove evolution. As you are a creationist, I presume that you intended to pretend that nothing would disprove evolution, which is obviously false: lots of things would disprove it if they were actually true. For example the one thing Eliyahu is quite right about is that it would disprove evolution if there was no sign of it in the fossil record. That's why the little liar is wasting so much energy in pretending that this is the case.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So now you're playing make-believe about what people would do under a set of imaginary circumstances?Can I join in? If you saw a magic unicorn, you'd crap yourself. That's my imaginary made-up story, and I'm sticking to it.Of course, if you could find something which did actually disprove evolution, you wouldn't have to play make-believe.

Your lie does not disprove evolution, because of being a lie.However, we may note that it would disprove evolution if it was true, and you yourself know this, which is why you tell it. So when you pretend that nothing would disprove evolution, you yourself know that you're talking crap. Your circular reasoning does not disprove evolution, because of it being a childish logical fallacy. The Flood does not disprove evolution, because of it being a made-up story for which no-one can find any evidence, and against which there is copious evidence. The idea that it "nicely accounts for the strata and the fossils" could only occur to someone so pitifully ignorant of geology as you are. Your lie does not disprove evolution, because of being a lie.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Stephen Jay Gould, the guy who thought up P.E, that's who. Stephen Jay Gould, who says (in his essay Evolution As Fact And Theory) that transitional forms are "abundant" in the fossil record, who stated on oath that there were "many" of them in his testimony in McLean v. Arkansas, and who stated, again under oath, that "it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms."Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Let's have some more of that authority Eliyahu likes so much."The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory [...] The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features." --- American Geological Institute.