Why would Gould say transitional fossils are abundant?
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
–Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution as Fact and Theory”
When Gould speaks of the rarity of transitional fossils, he is talking about transitions between species, not transitional fossils in general.
This makes me curious about what you said in a previous post:
“I’m wondering how you know what my “preferred history” is, when I don’t even have one. I’m happy to accept the history of life on earth largely as a mystery that can’t ever be solved.”
While we can’t read your mind, when people start using long known dishonest quote mines found on creationist websites we tend to think that the person posting these quote mines is spending time on creationist websites trying to find arguments against evolution. So why would you be pulling quotes from creationist websites if you aren’t leaning in that direction?
Darwin’s two contributions to the theory are natural selection and common ancestry. He thought the combination of these two mechanisms explained many observations in biology, not just the fossil record.
Yes!! Common descent combined with adaptation through natural selection is evidenced by the observed nested hierarchy in living species, the distribution of species across the globe, the distribution of rudimentary organs, and shared features in embryology. For example,
Romanes also wrote about the fossil record, but it is the shortest section in the entire essay and it hardly touches on any specifics. The other types of evidence are given way more time and weight. Here is a list of the chapters:
The value of fossils is that they are an independent line of evidence that can be used to test the theory of evolution. The more independent lines of evidence you have, the better. All of the lines of evidence that are used to test the theory of evolution are important and of value.
Well, there are real clades, but what level each clade is assigned to is to some extent arbitrary and is mostly a question of “What is the most useful for communication?”
How is pointing out that a claim requires someone to be incompetent in their field of expertise or work “defending honor”?
???
Measuring God scientifically is impossible. Plenty of scientists can see God, but they aren’t using science to see Him. Attributes or actions of Him can be seen using science, but one has to already be inclined to attribute them to God.
Changing size dramatically is easy. There are Paleoloxodon elephants that diverged from each other in the Miocene at the latest that range from the size of a small pony to the largest known species of fossil elephant.
Also, “average size” is not very informative. Most of the non-avian dinosaurs that share more features with modern birds are more like turkey-with-extra-legs-and-tail up to small ratite-sized.
Most Finches are 14-16 cm. So what? I said a finch, I did not specify.
But you had to look it up to even know the size in question.
You could claim lucky fluke, but that is standard witih Evolutionary thoeoy. What matters here is that i had a fairly good and accurate idea of the average size of birds, but you had to look it up.(Because that is how you ratify anything)
So you claim, But that is just part of the general theory. You are just blurting out dogma. Thinking would appear to be banned.
Go, keep on churning out the statistics. How big is a turkey?
(there is some irony in there but i doubt that you will see it)
One day you will address the criticisms instead of retorting or counter claiming.
(But that would prove you understood, so maybe not)
Your stupid questions are getting on my nerves, No one could be as dim as your responses indicate.
