Summations Only

It doesn't say that evolution took place in far away places. It says that changes happen over hundreds of thousands to millions of years in a small population, and then that small population spreads out and replaces other populations that did not evolve as quickly. That's it. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationistswhether through design or stupidity, I do not knowas 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."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money"Some discoveries in science are exciting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money

I see that you didn't even read the title of the chapter correctly."On the Imperfection of the Geological Record"Notice that it says GEOLOGIC record, not fossil record. There is a big difference between the two. Darwin spent an entire chapter showing that the geologic processes which produce fossils would not capture gradual evolutionary changes. Nowhere did Darwin ever say that the fossil record disagreed with his theory. Darwin argued that the combination of evolution and an erratic geologic column would produce gaps in an evolutionary progression as seen in the fossil record. He argued that the fossil record is consistent with evolution.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Here is what an expert says about that one:

​

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

​

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

​

"

​

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

​

.
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record."

​

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59

​

According to Eldredge, the fossil record is OK, it is the predictions of Darwin who are wrong.

​

Exit Darwin.

---

The problem for you is that Darwin predicted the same thing that Gould and Eldredge would later predict:"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]Darwin described Punctuated Equilibria as part of the original work on Evolution.How can PE prove Darwin wrong when Darwin fully accepted PE?

As the title suggests, Punctuated Equilibria is Evolution, and that is what Eliyahu tries to avoid. Even Darwinian evolution does not require gradualism, just as Plate Tectonics can include quick (i.e. earthquakes) and slow plate movements. Both gradualism and PE are caused by the same combination of mechanism which are random mutation, natural selection, and speciation.It's as if Eliyahu requires that all automobiles are cars, and the sight of a single pickup falsifies the existence of automobiles.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The greatest irony of all is that Darwin, Gould, Eldredge, et al. never said that the fossil record disproves evolution. Not once.If we could use forensic science as an analogy, what we had in 1850 was the equivalent of a few partial fingerprints. All of these fingerprints matched the suspect, but they were not high quality fingerprints. Since then, more full fingerprints have been collected, and they also match the suspect. Of course, we don't have a second by second account for the movement of the suspect, but we have more than enough to fill in the major blanks.That is what we have with the modern fossil record. All of the fossils support evolution. Nowhere do we find a bird to mammal transitional that would falsify evolution. Instead, we see the exact combination of features that the theory predicts we would see. Let me stress that again. ALL of the fossils support evolution, and that is what Eliyahu needs to face up to.

More importantly, how do these fossils, or any fossils for that matter, disprove evolution?From what I have seen, Eliyahu has confused the absence of evidence with evidence that disproves a hypothesis. Using the forensic evidence analogy again, if we don't find the suspect's fingerprints at the crime scene it does not prove that the suspect is innocent. However, finding someone else's fingerprints would lead us down the road of disproving the prosecution's case.In the case of fossils, the fossils we do have do not disprove evolution. In fact, all of the fossils we have support the theory.What we do not have is a fossil that disproves evolution.

Sure, but that is a very big number. In the case of the 3 billion base human genome, that would be 4 to the 3 billionth power. The major mechanisms are random mutation, natural selection, and speciation. Both gradualism and PE are the result of those same mechanisms.

If you had actually studied "Origins of Species" as you seemed to imply earlier in the thread, you would have known that evolution is descent with modification. New species are modified versions of what came before them, not something totally different. Our arms are modified mammal limbs, which are modified reptile limbs, and those reptile limbs are modified fish fins. All modifications, not something entirely new. If you take the chimp genome and add 40 million mutations along with recombination events, you get the human genome. Reality shows that you are wrong. Macroevolution is when one population splits into two and starts to accumulate different point mutations and indels. Every difference seen between the human and chimp genome is consistent with point mutations, recombination, and indel events.Edited by Admin, : Fix subtitle font size.

Can you show us one difference between the chimp and human genome that could not be produced by a microevolutionary event?Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulation of DIFFERENT microevolutionary events in divergent lineages. Macroevolution is just microevolution plus genetic isolation.Also, I have yet to see any peer reviewed papers to back your other claims. Trying to confuse everyone with semantic tricks, are we?For pocket mice, we can track the adaptation of these mice to black lava fields, from the production of the beneficial mutation to the spread of that mutation in different populations.Just a moment...That is evolution.Edited by Admin, : Fix subtitle font size.

And yet you can't even come up with one. Buying a trophy at the trophy shop does not make you a champion. Declaring yourself the winner while ignoring all of the evidence is extremely dishonest.

That doesn't look like stasis to me.