Well CTD it seems we have reached the stage of talking past each other. You don't want to face the evidence of reality, and I tire of your games of multiple distraction and volumes of misinformation, complete with delusions of persecution and deception.
Here's the situation: RAZD believes he has lured me into a trap.
Nope. Just that you need to look at the information and not just cherry pick what suits you.
(Gould in bold and blood red):
I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. 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?
You will notice that this quote is not from the original source but from an article that criticizes Gould and PE. The actual article quoted from is
Paleobiology; January 1980; v. 6; no. 1; p. 119-130
Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?
S. J. Gould
Harv. Univ., Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, Mass., United States
Unfortunately Paleobiology does not provide free access nor an abstract to articles this old. Nor does the "Unofficial SJG Archives" have an on-line copy
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html—— 1980. Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6 (1): 119-130.
I did find this however:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2400239Abstract
During the past 20 years, paleobiology has established the foundations of a nomothetic science based upon evolutionary theory. This radical break with a past philosophy based on irreducible historical uniqueness is still impeded by (1) overreliance upon the inductivist methodology that embodied this previous philosophy, and (2) an unadventurous approach to biology that attempts passively to transfer the orthodoxies of microevolutionary theory across vast stretches of time and several levels of a hierarchy into the domain of macroevolution. I analyze the major trends of recent invertebrate paleobiology in the light of these two impediments. The formulation, by paleobiologists and with paleobiological data, of new macroevolutionary theories should end the subservience of passive transfer and contribute, in turn, to the formulation of a new, general theory of evolution that recognizes hierarchy and permits a set of unifying principles to work differently at various levels.
Where he doesn't appear to mention PE at all, rather he is talking about
possible mechanisms for macroevolution.
.
Of course we can
envisage many similar possibilities like this -- yey this still does not mean that Gould says PE necessarily involves macromutation saltation or even rely on it, while the voluminous evidence from other articles clearly states in Gould's first hand words that PE does not involve macromutations.
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".
Which is also why I gave two examples of what Gould meant by "large", nor does their change in position on Elena et al., mean they have changed their mind about what "large" means.
Curiously, I can still read his work and see what he means by large: color variations in caterpillars and size changes in single cell organisms are by Gould's usage "large" and you cannot force them to mean what you want it to.
This type of logical false thinking and misrepresentation of the evidence is so typical of CTD's whole argument process that it really become tedious tracking down all the errors of misrepresentation, misreading and misinformation.
We went through this on the "missing" elements of Darwin's theory, that according to your argument make modern evolution watered down, weakened and diluted. Pages and page written and no one single iota of evidence that there is any difference at all from Darwin's theory that descent with modification can explain the origin of species to the theory that the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation can explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from the fossil and geological record, and from the genetic record.
What it boils down to is that CTD's arguments are composed of hot air, wishful thinking, delusions of persecution or conspiracy and moving smiley icons. I'm not sure which is more compelling as evidence of a lack of argument.
Volumnious argument that is not founded on a shred of real evidence is like shinola from used-car salesmen, totally untrustworthy.
The facts remain:
That Harum Yahya claimed -- that PE as proposed by Gould and Eldridge required macroevolution of large and sudden change
and not regular evoluiton has been demonstrated to be a false claim.
There is nothing missing from Darwin's original theories in today's evolution. In fact evolution today has so much more evidence and actually observed instances of what what theorized by Darwin that it is substantially more than Darwin's original formulation. This is similar to the progress in understanding of how things work as the change from Newton's law of gravity to Einstein's Relativity.
To claim other wise is really to ignore reality.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color] And I have even less time for foolish reiteration of falsehoods regardless of how many times they have been refuted.
