Summations Only

If you don't understand how evolution explains the history of life, how is it that you feel qualified to have an opinion?--Percy

No, we're not saying the same thing at all. Evolution and gradualism are not synonyms. It is evidence of gradualism that is not well represented in the fossil record. Evidence of evolution is everywhere throughout the fossil record. No, wrong again. PE explains the underrepresentation of gradualism in the fossil record. Of course fossil species in one layer can be associated with fossils in older layers, just not through gradual change. For example, Chasmosaurus beli is thought to be an ancestor of Triceratops, and the similarity is obvious: This is evidence of evolution, but not of gradualism. The paucity of evidence for gradualism is what PE attempts to explain. Species that don't change over millions of years is consistent with the creation story? Really? You mean the creation story from the Bible? The creation story where the world is only around 6000 years old? And that's consistent with species surviving unchanged for millions of years? You're not really asking for the messages where people demonstrate how wrong and chuckleheaded you're being, because that's been done all over this thread. What you're really asking for is the message that finally made the little light go on in your head that says, "Oh, evolution and gradualism are not the same thing."That message hasn't happened yet, but let me try again. You quote Eldredge in support of your claim that he believes the fossil record shows no evolution: Note that Eldredge said "finely graded change", not evolution.--PercyEdited by AdminModulous, : subtitleEdited by Percy, : Replace Triceratops, it was from a site that doesn't play nice.

He's read the Koran or something.

Is that what your quote mines say?Please document. They do? Is that what Gould said? Is that the creation story? Millions of years? Stasis with sudden appearances? If you say so. Millions of years with long periods of stasis evident in some fossils, and (many) sudden changes throughout geological time, eventually leading to the current status of life on earth.Sounds good to me.But that kinda sounds like evolution... Please provide and example and maybe we could discuss it. You know, talk about the specifics a little bit rather than make sweeping generalizations. Ummm... pretty much all of them. I'm not getting the same message as you. But hey, you're the big science guy so you must be right.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, they just popped into existence, eh?Sounds like YEC to me.But no, organs and limbs don't do that. They evolve. I never said I was a biologist, but I'm pretty sure that my understanding exceeds yours.

Neither do we.But then, you are way ahead of me on what sience is.Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, you are saying that no gaps have been filled?And what if Darwin was wrong about this? So what?Your quote mine does not 'prove' this; and remember the future is still ahead of us. It's called 'learning', Eli. You should try it sometime.You do realize that Darwin lived over a century ago, or has that fact also escaped you? No, the explanation is PE. But we do see evidence for it. That is the point. Not to mention the logic of the argument.Are you saying that a superhero magiking creatures into existence makes more sense? Edited by edge, : No reason given.

But isn't that how you think new genes appeared?Just what is your story?Edited by edge, : No reason given.

My theory is that revealed truth always trumps learned truth in the world of YEC. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Forgot to reply to this part: Inverted layers are both uncommon and extremely obvious, obvious like paging through an upside down book. The progression of change in the fossil record through successively higher levels of strata is precisely what evolution tells us to expect. The tilting or inverting of strata in some places long after they were originally laid down doesn't change anything or make them particularly difficult to interpret.--Percy

Well, unless you ignore stratigraphy and relative ages of layers (via the law of superposition), in which case you can claim almost anything. But then you are believing in a lying creator.One wonders how Eliyahu explains deep time.

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.

Given that you admit that you don't know how evolution works, don't you think that you should study it a little before you take the giant step of telling us all that the fossil record disproves it?A little humility goes a long way.

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.

Even when the evidence is right in front of him as in Message 235:

quote:

---

Here are two more pictures of the Pelycodus fossil data, now with some additional Copelemur fossil data from a neighboring ecology:

​

​

These show the "gradualistic view" on the left, and the "punctuational view" on the right. Both show the data is the same: the horizontal bars represent the size distribution of the fossils in each layer, and these size distributions are seen to evolve from one generation to the next, from level to level, even when only size is measured (there are other differences as well, but this is a convenient way to document the data).

​

Note that the only "interpretations" here are how the lines are drawn, not where the data is plotted.

---

We could also talk about horse evolution:http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

quote:

---

​

Hyracotherium ... represents the oldest known horse. It had a primitive short face, with eye sockets in the middle and a short diastema (the space between the front teeth and the cheek teeth).

​

Although it has low-crowned teeth, we see the beginnings of the characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars.

​

​

Orohippus ... is found in the middle Eocene of Wyoming, about 2 million years after the first appearance of Hyracotherium. The two genera coexisted during the Eocene, although Orohippus fossils are not as numerous or as geographically widespread as those of Hyracotherium.

​

Orohippus was slightly larger than Hyracotherium, but shared its generally primitive postcranial skeletal structure. For example, as in humans, the lower limb bones of the forelimb (the radius and ulna) of Hyracotherium and Orohippus are distinct and unfused. This is the primitive condition for mammals, and permits rotational movement at the elbow and wrist joints. This condition is retained by animals such as small forest dwellers who must maneuver over uneven terrain. In its postcranial skeleton, Orohippus differs from Hyracotherium by having more enlarged middle digits on its fore and hind feet, and by displaying a complete loss of the first and fifth (thumb and pinkie) toes of the hindlimb.

---

That is basically the amount of evolutionary difference between punctuation events where we see the new genera (not species btw) "appear suddenly" while the old genera still exists and then lasting longer in later strata.So does Eliyahu say there is no evolutionary relationship between these genera? ... and what would be the basis for that assertion?And that is just the start of the horses ...