Here's the situation: RAZD believes he has lured me into a trap. PE is poorly understood and subject to a ton of debate & different opinions even in top evolutionist circles. Confusion abounds, and there are some seasoned double-talkers involved.
He deliberately accused HY of publishing something that wasn't so. His words, with important emphasis:
This is a falsehood. Neither Gould nor Eldridge said any such thing.
He thought it would be nigh on impossible for me to wade through all the double-talk. And even if I could, how could I make the results clear? At first thought, this seems like a formidable problem. But he got a little too cocky, and he underestimated my skills as an evolutionologist (I study evolutionists).
The first thing he overlooked is that the burden of proof lies with him. He makes the accusation, you see. In my first post I amply defended Harun Yayah. In such a muck of back & forth evaluation of PE, RAZD's task of proving guilt is even more difficult than anyone taking up the defense, and we see what a failure has resulted.
My second post changed things. I said RAZD's accusation was false. I undertook a burden of proof. Oh how happy he must've been to see that! I have established HY's innocence, and now I shall establish RAZD's guilt.
Do not be shocked that I am able to do this. Truth is on my side, and truth is a powerful ally. And as I say, RAZD has been too cocky. RAZD didn't say "PE never said any such thing." Had he said this, my job of convincing everyone of his guilt would be considerably harder. He said "Neither Gould nor Eldridge said any such thing.[/b]"
But Gould did sayAs a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages.
One could debate whether Gould was speaking on behalf of himself alone, or PE. But such obfuscation is of no use to RAZD. One might quibble over HY's terms 'large' and 'sudden' vs. Gould's 'major' and 'rapidly'. But RAZD didn't say "these exact words". RAZD
did say "any such thing". Clearly these synonyms
are any such thing, and RAZD is guilty of making a false accusation.
There are some scriptures, RAZD, about setting snares and digging pits. If you're interested I could look them up.
But as HY's innocence is established and your guilt is established, for now I'll move along & see what may be responseworthy in your post.
Well CTD, you seem to be running out ... on reality.
It is Redefinin' RAZD, talkdeceptions, the evoflunky who edited the wiki, and probably a few others who are commiting the error. How common it is, I can't say.
This is a falsehood, as I have never edited that article on wikipedia, nor am I affilitated with talkorigins in any way.
Come now. The truth of my statement has nothing to do with your affiliation with the other erring parties. Whether or not the error is a result of affiliation does not alter the fact that all parties have made the same error. It could be coincidence for all we know.
This doesn't bother me, as (1) CTD's opinion of me is the least of my concerns (comes after what to do with toe clippings),
The frequency with which you insult my intelligence by employing bargain basement evolutionist tricks confirms this. We are in agreement on one issue.
and (2) it demonstrates, amply, that CTD is ready and willing to rely on falsehood for his debate instead of truth. This of course necessarily makes anything he claims untrustworty.
Oh no you di'n't! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" />
The last resort of cognitive dissonance is character assasination, the ad hominem attack, the shoot the messenger and ignore the message approach.
Recall please who's been shown guilty of
falsely accusing Harun Yayah, and what the motive appears to be. I seem to recall some other things being said about Harun Yayah as well.
Now I'm next in line for my role in setting things straight? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/quickdraw.gif" alt="" /> Bring it on!
This too demonstrates the complete, absolute and total failure of CTD to demonstrate that there was "somehing" (as he claimed above) that is a part of Darwin's theory that is somehow missing in his statement (descent with modification)...
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/headdancer.gif" alt="" />"This", in conventional English usage, is a pronoun which must refer to something previously mentioned in the post. There is nothing in the post remotely connected with the discussion of RAZD's quest for a definition of 'evolution'.
Why don't we see what Gould himself called "large" changes. From one of your other links we have this:
Gould and Eldredge later said (13), p. 226; see also(10), p. 66) that "Opponents now accept that punctuated equilibrium was never meant as a saltational theory... ." Yet even this statement was later qualified. Commenting on the experiments of Elena et al. in E. coli (14), which showed punctuated change in cell size resulting from sporadic mutations of large effect, Gould noted that these results are "deeply similar to [punctuated equilibrium].
for empHASis.
Note that when you say "person A says large and rapid" then you need to see what that person means by "large and rapid" rather than what YOU think they mean.
You made the accusation, so it's your burden. Your "YOU" is you yourself.
And this is their explanation of a means to generate macromutations (or perhaps technically, macromutational results). Do you now insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to confuse macromutations with macroevolution? My opinion is that your intent is implied, and strongly.
Somehow I don't think size differences in Escherichia coli (a common intestinal bacterium) are what Harum Yahya is talking about, or what you think of as "large" or "rapid" macroevolution.
...And this is why.
Just a reminder: the burden of proof is on RAZD. He is the accusor. He has not demonstrated
all Gould's usages of the term large. Rather he has cherry-picked one item, hoping nobody
actually checks it out and finds the quote in a little fuller context:
Eldredge and Gould have proposed an equally diverse array of explanations for rapid "punctuated" evolution. It was initially ascribed to the breakdown of developmental constraints in small, speciating populations (a non-Darwinian process) (1) and later to the occurrence of single mutations with large effects (including homeotic mutations) or to chromosome rearrangements affecting gene expression (3, (4, (6). Gould, for example, asserted (4), p. 127)
I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. [color:"red"] Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? [/color]
But Gould and Eldredge later said (13), p. 226; see also(10), p. 66) that "Opponents now accept that punctuated equilibrium was never meant as a saltational theory... ." Yet even this statement was later qualified. Commenting on the experiments of Elena et al. in E. coli (14), which showed punctuated change in cell size resulting from sporadic mutations of large effect, Gould noted that these results are "deeply similar to [punctuated equilibrium]. There is an underlying commonality in the style of change" (14),. Eldredge and Gould now appear to see no connection between punctuated equilibrium and the results of Elena et al.
Everything surrounding RAZD's cherry-picked quote shows how silly it was. Everything!
But he will maintain that Gould doesn't mean "large" when he says "large". The evoego cannot easily admit defeat. And he
knew where he got that quote when he cherry-picked it, and yet insults our intelligence, most brazenly.
In addition, from your link of Gould on Goldschmidt:
He spent most of his early career studying geographic variation in the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar. He found that large differences in the color patterns of caterpillars resulted from small changes in the timing of development: the effects of a slight delay or enhancement of pigmentation early in growth increased through ontogeny and led to profound differences among fully grown caterpillars.
.
In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults. Prolong the high prenatal rate of brain growth into early childhood and a monkey's brain moves toward human size. Delay the onset of metamorphosis and the axolotl of Lake Xochimilco reproduces as a tadpole with gills and never transforms into a salamander.
Somehow I don't think that qualifies as what you or Harun Yahya were thinking either.
What's your point? If Gould
ever used "large" in a different sense than I would, does that mean he
never could have used "large" in a sense I would? That's not valid logic. Especially when the subject of the discussion is a double-talking evolutionist whose pet "theory" was somewhat polymorphic, as we
have established. (Remember - that's the whole idea behind this trap!)
Since we are both saying that punk eek is about speciation and not larger scale change, I have to wonder what the difference is.
I'm rearranging a bit so the q-boxes don't become overnested.
Elsberry's organization is evident if one follows
the link, but it translates poorly in the quote box. His format is : first sentence is the error (I'll colour) and what follows tells why. Adding bold to key words as well.
But as long as I'm started, I might as well make this more than a short supplement.
RAZD:(plus bold)
So the above quote is from one of the early papers on punkeek. It is also clear from the rest of the wiki article that large scale change is not involved. Speciation is not large scale change, and that is the most that punkeek claims. We in fact see speciation events like this. We also (see foraminifera) see speciation events without this mechanism of small population isolates.
Wesley R. Elsberry at talkdeceptions, in part #6, Common errors in discussion of PE
[color:"orange"]PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. [/color] The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.
So who's right, RAZD or Elsberry?
Let's also look at what Gould himself says, from another of your links (his dispute with Dawkins, which was ongoing and there was no love lost between them):
In particular, and most offensive to me, the urban legend rests on the false belief that radical, "middle-period" punctuated equilibrium became a saltational theory wedded to Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters as a mechanism. I have labored to refute this nonsensical charge from the day I first heard it. But my efforts are doomed within the self-affirming structure of the urban legend. We all know, for so the legend proclaims, that I once took the Goldschmidtian plunge. So if I ever deny the link, I can only be retreating from an embarrassing error. And if I, continue to deny the link with force and gusto, well, then I am only backtracking even harder (into stage 3) and apologizing (or obfuscating) all the more. How about the obvious (and accurate) alternative: that we never made the Goldschmidtian link; that this common error embodies a false construction; and that our efforts at correction have always represented an honorable attempt to relieve the confusion of others.
added for emPHAsis.
And as quoted above, Gould said "I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. , etc." Double-talker. No news.
But I am confused by your post - are you now claiming that speciation events are now generally considered "sudden, large" changes by creationists? If so, then hooray! "macro"evoluiton has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all these creationists, as speciation has been observed.
I suppose that would depend on the creationist. I haven't taken a poll; neither do I recall indicating that which you assert.
It comes as no suprise to me that Elsberry disagrees with you, as you clearly are no authority on anything biological or evolutionary (to say nothing of truth).
It also comes as no surprise to me when what you have quoted here agrees with the rest of the other articles you took quotes from, as shown above. Gould emphatically states that punkeek does not involve saltationism OR a "hopeful monster" event.
So? He also states the opposite. Don't act surprised.
What it demonstrates is that you have misrepresented Gould and punkeek, as does Harum Yahya, and many other creationists, or misunderstood Goulds comments as others have. Such misunderstandings come from cursory reading rather than understanding of articles.
Oh, many other creationists? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/playhorsey.gif" alt="" /> Well, I'm happy to vindicate every last one & show all who visit this thread who the real deceivers and double-talkers are.
*** Bonus! Niles Eldridge says in this pdf:
We find this example and other such case studies compelling evidence that morphological stasis is a common pattern in the fossil record, which thus requires an examination of how evolutionary and ecological processes can account for it.
So a professional evolutionist does not think stasis is something which can be blown off...
Which is not the argument. Stassis is a part of the natural history of life on earth, however this "stassis" is not a complete lack of evolution, just a comparatively slow rate of change in geological time. Here's the abstract of the paper linked:
Abstract.—The fossil record displays remarkable stasis in many species over long time periods, yet studies of extant populations often reveal rapid phenotypic evolution and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent advances in our understanding of the fossil record and in population genetics and evolutionary ecology point to the complex geographic structure of species being fundamental to resolution of how taxa can commonly exhibit both short-term evolutionary dynamics and long-term stasis.
Did you intend to convey they had resolved it? The italics should help.
I expect all who were
there remember the issue.
RAZD:
This is a common misunderstanding for people that don't understand science and evolution, and it is another example of the "All A is B, B! therefore A" logical fallacy. Evolution does not HAVE to happen, nor does it HAVE to affect all species in any major way -- species that are in a stable niche can - and do - remain virtually unchanged (certainly unchanged enough for the average person to see little difference). The blue-green algae that lives today is similar to the fossils that are found in rocks 3.5 billion years old, the oldest known fossils.
