How is that moving the goalposts? Earlier quotes and the latest one are all by Eldredge and Gould. All quotes are about the same fact that the fossil record offers no support for gradual change.
Sheesh, did you even bother to read what you allegedly are replying to? To repeat: Earlier you were trying to quote Gould as saying there are no transitional fossils at all, but now you've moved to him saying that a "degree of gradualism" isn't present in the fossil record. Those are two very different things.
Whether the alleged evolution model assumes continual interbreeding of a species or branching species “cladogenesis”, it doesn’t change the fundamental assumption that the transformation of one species into different one is a gradual process that necessitates numerous numbers of transitional forms. Real world observations of the fossil record do not support the assumed gradualism.
Actually, both are observed in the fossil record.
Gradualism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Punctuated equilibrium is in contrast with phyletic gradualism but both predict numerous transitional forms to the contrary of real world observations of the fossil record.
Your own source, S.J. Gould, said transitional fossils are "abundant" and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either doing so out of stupidity or deceit.
Are you now disagreeing with your own source on the very topic in which you cite him as an expert?
Selection is supposed be a slow and gradual process, per the ToE, endless purposeless random mutations would continuously emerge and for every successful transitional form that was filtered/kept by selection, we should find endless other unsuccessful forms that were eliminated by selection. In fact, real world observations of the fossil record neither show numerous successful transitional forms nor the endless unsuccessful forms that were eliminated.
See above. We do have examples of gradualism in the fossil record.
Considering the number of genes in a genome and possible combinations that can be randomly produced in nature for each single species, there wouldn't be enough material or time in the whole universe for nature to try out all the possible interactions (both the successful and unsuccessful ones) even for a single species. (Especially the number of alleged random unsuccessful mutations that got eliminated by selection would be unimaginable)
The human genome alone includes 30,000 genes; number of possible interactions gets to be so unimaginable (ten to the seventy thousand). Imagine the number of possible interactions for every single species on the planet. This is totally ridiculous; we don’t see that in nature neither the enormous number of transitional forms nor the unimaginable number of unsuccessful life forms that supposedly got eliminated by selection.
Those are interesting claims. Let's see your calculations.
In his book “What Makes Biology Unique?” Ernst Mayr proposed that evolutionary biology is different than the so-called "exact" sciences and that the basic principles of the scientific method are simply not applicable to evolutionary biology.
He stated that evolutionary biology developed its own methodology of historical narratives, where experiments are inappropriate and definitely acknowledged the similarity with the Geisteswissenschaften when he said “Indeed evolutionary biology, as a science, in many respects is more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences.". He proposed that evolutionary biology is “Autonomous” and as such is allowed to break free beyond the restrictions of the scientific method. He said:
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
“Evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”
“However biology is in many respects a very different science from the so-called exact sciences. Perhaps the most pronounced difference is that biology, in part, is a historical science. In this part of biology, evolutionary biology, the method of historical narratives is the most heuristic approach.”
“For instance, how do species multiply? However, as we will see, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases in which experiments are inappropriate, evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives"
“This revealed that some of the basic principles of the physical sciences are simply not applicable to biology. They had to be eliminated and replaced by principles pertinent to biology”
Um....all you're doing is ignoring what I posted and repeating your original false claim. As I showed, Mayr was criticizing categorizing evolution as Geisteswissenschaften.
Please try and debate ethically.
No, you are refereeing to the adaptation ability of organisms as driven by directed mutation see #1245. If the process is random as the ToE assumed, we wouldn’t expect same results to repeat but we do know for a fact that microorganisms do develop antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In fact, latest finds of molecular biology is what disproved all central assumptions of the modern synthesis. See #753 & #781
Sorry, but none of those posts support your claims. The fact remains, organisms such as bacteria evolve resistance to our antibiotics, and understanding how they do so is extremely important in medicine. You're just trying to unilaterally relabel evolution as "adaptation" and hope others go along with it.
You are certainly no authority to do that sort of thing.
It's not about primary or secondary mode, these are contradicting modes in contrast with each other as evident in the statements of the critics on each end, and neither of them explain the unbridged gap of the fossil record.
Um....what? You're actually arguing that PE, which was proposed as way to explain the patterns in the fossil record, doesn't explain the fossil record?
Again,
you certainly are not qualified to make that sort of claim and expect others to go along with it.
“Critics such as Scott, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have concerns that the theory (
punctuated equilibrium) has gained undeserved credence among non-scientists because of Gould's rhetorical skills.” This is definitely not an argument about a primary mode.
Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia
So? Some evolutionary biologists expressing concerns about Gould being persuasive mostly because of his writing skills is not mutually exclusive with them also disagreeing with its accuracy. Are you not aware that both can be true?
In fact, the rejection of steady gradualism is necessarily a rejection of theory of evolution itself even if not declared as such, that is why the proponents of gradualism were aware of this issue and were very critical of punctuated equilibrium.
Again, things are not so simply because
you say so.
Christianity neither supports that the Aryan race is the master race, nor that the Jews should be exterminated.
Nazi Germany racial ideology was driven by evolutionary biology at its core. See the links below.
Nazi eugenics
Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany. The racial ideology of Nazism placed the biological improvement of the German people by selective breeding of "Nordic" or "Aryan" traits at its center.
Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia
Racial hygiene
The term racial hygiene was used to describe an approach to eugenics in the early 20th century, which found its most extensive implementation in Nazi Germany (Nazi eugenics). It was marked by efforts to avoid miscegenation, analogous to an animal breeder seeking purebred animals.
Racial hygiene - Wikipedia
So just as the Nazis misappropriated evolution to justify their atrocities, they misappropriated religion to justify their atrocities. Pol Pot misappropriated agrarianism to justify his atrocities. ISIS and Al Qaeda misappropriated Islam to justify their atrocities.
Perhaps this is a news flash for you, but people misappropriate all sorts of things to justify their actions all the time.
So, that influence proves the point of the specific damaging impact of the the ToE on humanity which totally has nothing to do with the influence of religions or any other ideology.
The question now is, are you simply unable to understand how the argument you're trying to make against evolution also applies to Islam, or is it that you understand but are trying to wave it away.
Again, this is a separate irrelevant argument that has nothing to do with the influence of the ToE.
It looks like you're trying to wave it away. The fact that the same argument you're trying to make against evolution also applies to Islam is pretty inconvenient for you, isn't it? So rather than deal with it directly, just wave it away and hope it disappears.
The problem for you is, it isn't going away.
Not true, the benefits were driven by scientific advancement of epigenetics, physiology, genomics, population genetics, microbiology and systems biology.
LOL....if all you have as a rebuttal is "Nuh uh", I'll just let that speak for itself. Would you like to see a specific example of how relative evolutionary relatedness directly helped with discerning genetic function?
In fact, the ToE assumption of random mutation is misleading, contradicts observations and was disproved by latest finds of molecular biology. “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas” See#781
We've been over this and you're just ignoring what we covered and repeating yourself.
With respect to its influence, indeed it’s damaging to humanity.
And by the same reasoning, so is Islam.
With respect to its refutation, it’s driven by latest 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology, which disproved all the fundamental assumptions of the Modern Synthesis.
Again, things are not so simply because you say they are.
