I don't have the source of Gould's quote but Mayr said what I posted in a book he wrote: "What Evolution is," p 189 & p69.
Which is quote-mining as neither holds the same conclusion you attempt to justify by quoting them.
It is amusing that when a quote refutes someone's theology, they always whine abut quote mining, something they all do when they think it serves their purpose.
It is amusing to see copy/paste hacks not read their sources and fail realize that both support evolution.
Better luck next time with all of your empty claims.
Read your own citations and their views. You have done nothing but quote-mined and created a strawman from two proponents of evolution not creationism. Also since I provided the source you used which is not the books from either person you claim to cite I justified my assertion with evidence.
Let me know when you can figure out the difference between an assertion and justification.
The quote itself is as follows.
"From Darwin's day to the present, there has been a heated controversy over whether macroevolution is nothing but an unbroken continuation of microevolution, as Darwin and his followers had
claimed, or rather is disconnected from microevolution, as asserted by his opponents, and that it must be explained by a different set of theories. According to this view, there is a definite
discontinuity between the species level and that of the higher taxa. The reason why this controversy has not been fully settled is because there seems to be an astonishing conflict between theory and observation. According to Darwinian theory, evolution is a populational phenomenon and should therefore be gradual and continuous. This should be true not only for microevolution but
also for macroevolution and for the transition between the two. Alas, this seems to be in conflict with observation. Wherever we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or
even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. Among living taxa there is no intermediacy between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and either birds or mammals. All 30 phyla of animals are separated from each other by a gap. There seems to be a large gap between the flowering plants (angiosperms) and their nearest relatives. The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates. Indeed there are rather few cases of continuous series of gradually evolving species. How can this seeming contradiction be explained? At first sight, there seems to be no method available to explain macroevolutionary phenomena by microevolutionary theories. But should it nevertheless be possible to expand the microevolutionary processes into macroevolutionary ones? And furthermore, can it be shown that macroevolutionary theories and laws are fully consistent with the microevolutionary findings? The possibility of such an explanation was shown by a number of authors during the evolutionary synthesis, particularly by Rensch and Simpson. They successfully developed Darwiniangeneralizations about macroevolution without having to analyze any correlated changes in gene frequencies. This approach was consistent with the modern definition of evolution as a change in adaptedness and diversity, rather than as a change in gene fre-quencies, as suggested by the reductionists. To put it in a nutshell, in order to prove that there is an unbroken continuity between macro- and microevolution, the Darwinians have to demonstrate that seemingly very different "types" are nothing but the end points in a continuous series of evolving populations.
Source: The book itself pdf page 223-4 (top left)
https://sunsetridgemsbiology.wikisp...tionis.pdf/245942423/mayr-whatevolutionis.pdf
The context matters as the book is not addressing your creationism but views within evolutionary theory that are decades old. Read your sources.
