Renee wrote:Stephen Jay Gould's most significant contribution to evolutionary biology was the theory of punctuated equilibrium, which he developed with Niles Eldredge in 1972... He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap.
You neglected to mention that Gould and Eldrege invented Punctuated Equilibrium due to the lack of transitonals and to the stasis revealed in the fossil record. In the words of Gould, "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear ...
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and "fully formed.""
(Incidentally, Gould's description sounds exactly like what you'd expect if creation is true.)
Biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in a review that Grassé's belief that evolution is directed by some unknown mechanism does not explain anything. He concluded that "to reject what is known, and to appeal to some wonderful future discovery which may explain it all, is contrary to sound scientific method. The sentence with which Grassé ends his book is disturbing: "It is possible that in this domain biology, impotent, yields the floor to metaphysics."
It's worth mentioning what else Dobzhansky had to say about P-P. Grasse: "He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traite de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic." Grasse's believed in evolution but made the mistake of attacking Darwinism. But this offence paled into insignificance compared to suggesting that science couldn't fully explain evolution. To the atheist dictatorship that is evolutionary biology, this is heresy. Grasse has been demonised ever since.
Renee's comments:
Grasse was an occultist, according to these more modern critics of his. Enough said.
I suspect that the accusation of his involvement in occultism is false, but it serves a useful purpose vis-a-vis the assassination of his character.
Besides that, if participation in the occult concerns you, guess what? ... the theory of evolution is a form of occultism.
-----------------------------
Regarding the fossil record:
If evolution has been proceeding for millions of years, the fossils that have been discovered thus far could make up only a tiny fraction of the total number of fossils on earth. So the fossil record, as we know it, may be too small to be statistically significant. Never mind, this doesn't deter evolutionists, who insist that the fossil record represents "empirical evidence" of their theory.
I can't think of another field of science as cursed by uncertainties, grey areas, ambiguities, speculations, guess-work and assumptions as paleontology. The corollary of all this is never-ending internal controversies and a milieu that is tailor-made for story telling and vivid imaginations. For every claim made by a paleotologist, you'll find another paleontologist who disputes it. For example, not even the celebrated Archaeopteryx is universally accepted as a true transitional. Likewise, there is no shortage of scientists who debunk the tale of the "evolution" of the horse, which the Darwinist rank-and-file love to cite.
Gould: "... does [the lack of fossil evidence] permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases? I submit, although it may only reflect my lack of imagination, that the answer is No".
Colin Patterson: "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
"I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."
The average citizen is unaware that some of the evolutionary creatures that paleontologists dream up and make their way into textbooks are based on mere fragments of bones that have been dug up. What made Nebraska Man a masterpiece of farcical Darwinist comedy was that he was invented on the basis of one tooth - that turned out to be that of a pig!!!
So can paleontology even be considered a "true science"? One thing is certian: Its convoluted, opaque and nebulous nature is a perfect match for evolution, which is a charlatan's paradise.
-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 8:13 pm to add the following --
Greta wrote:"Macro evolution" is a term recently embraced by theists because their initial claims that evolution was not real at all were so obviously disproved by fossil evidence and antibiotic resistance.
Antibiotic resistance is a good example of natural selection, but has no relevance at all to speciation. So to use it as evidence of (macro)evolution is nonsensical and unscientific, not to mention intellectually dishonest.
-- Updated December 5th, 2016, 8:23 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:Anthony Edgar:
Regardless, debates about the limits or lack of limits of evolution are just pie in the sky. Arguments rage back and forth, but the reality of applied science couldn't care less.
Within the scientific community there is little or no debate.
I meant between creationists and evolutionists. That is to say, the theologies of both camps are irrelevant to applied science.
For some the truth matters. For some understanding biology and living things and our place in the animal kingdom matters. For some knowing that life on earth did not begin 6,000 years ago matters.
It does indeed matter to atheists to believe that "science" proves that the Bible is nonsense (and by extension, that God is nonsense). But what a pity such "science" is actually no more than a bunch of untestable theories and highly questionable evidence. This hardly constitutes a water-tight argument, but to the those who are determined to "not let a divine foot in the door", it suffices.
"Pie-in-the-sky theories and dubious evidence made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" - a self-deluded atheist.
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe in them." - George Orwell