Summations Only

Gould was not arguing against evolution, he was arguing for his own ideas about how evolution happened.The idea of Punctuated Equilibria is that speciation occurred via Mayr's mechanism of allopatric speciation. A small population would be cut off from the main body, and would rapidly evolve through drift and differing selection pressures. In some cases the new species that resulted would be able to expand past the barrier that had isolated it and replace the parent species.Since this evolution would take place in a relatively small population, and a restricted geographical area it would be expected to be usually absent from the fossil record.However, according to this view the "missing" fossils would be intermediates between palaeontological species. Intermediates between higher taxonomic groups should still appear, in accord with evolutionary theory. And this is what we find.The fossil record, therefore, provides very strong evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what Gould or any others themselves meant, if what they said has implications for creationist views that's a perfectly valid way to use their quotes.

---

So distortions and misrepresentations are acceptable if they serve your cause ? If the creationist use is at odds with Gould's meaning then it must be - at the least - an unintentional misrepresentation.

quote:

---

Misrepresentation isn't the point in this case,

---

Then what Gould meant IS relevant.

quote:

---

the point is only that some things they said can be shown to point to different conclusions than theirs

---

I don't believe that that is true, if the statements are properly understood.

quote:

---

Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.

​

Would that disprove the ET according to you?

---

I guess that you don't understand the issue. A dog existing at the time of the dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous) would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. A dinosaur surviving until more modern times would not.

quote:

---

There we go, suddenly it is not a problem anymore.

​

Silly putty.

---

Up to now there was at least the possibility that you were being deceived by the dishonesty of others. At least you've removed that with this thoroughly dishonest answer.The extinction of the dinosaurs isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory, it's a fact established by the lack of evidence of any surviving dinosaurs (birds excepted) after the end of the Cretaceous. If we found evidence that some other dinosaur had survived long enough to be caught and eaten by a dog that would just mean that some few dinosaurs had managed to survive longer than we believed from the evidence that we had.If you don't understand the theory of evolution to even that extent, that isn't because the theory is "silly putty" it's just that you are hopelessly ignorant of the theory that you are supposedly trying to refute.And, of course, your quote has nothing to do with the issue