Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by leopold, Apr 2, 2012.
i see no need to respond to any posts such as this.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, that's right leopold - keep digging that hole.....
The original article is:
Evolutionary theory under fire
Science 21 November 1980: 883-887. [DOI:10.1126/science.6107993]
I cannot reproduce the entire article here as that is a breach of copyright. But I can confirm that Buckaroo Banzai’s reproduction above is an exact duplication from the original article in Science magazine.
The article is an account of a small meeting to discuss the extent to which the accumulation of gradual changes can account for large scale evolutionary change. The validity of the Theory of Evolution is in no way challenged by any material from the article. The only topic in question is the underlying mechanisms. Gould is a proponent of punctuated equilibrium and, thus, argues that the sudden bursts of morphological change brought about by PE accounts for the observed gaps in the fossil record. Gould does not suggest that the fossil record is poor evidence for evolution, and no quotation from this article, if used in context, can be used to argue that. The excerpt above from Buckaroo Banzai demonstrates this.
I will also reproduce this paragraph from the article:
Clearly Gould and Eldredge do not discount a role for gradualism in evolution. There are paragraphs of text after this one that further underscore some clear fossil evidence for the gradual accumulation of morphological changes.
So, leopold, it has been unambiguously demonstrated to you that quotations by Gould from this article do not support the conclusion that he is arguing the fossil record is poor evidence for evolution. It has also been demonstrated that gradualism has a recognised place in the Theory of Evolution.
The article is actually titled "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", by Roger Lewin, from 1980. You can still access it as the article itself is archived online on various sites. You can scroll down where you can see where the person who took the quote out of context on his site made the correction after it was pointed out to him. Also, note that the article itself was re-printed in a site about Christianity and evolution, where the article was misrepresented and the quote taken out of context, which he (the person who misrepresented it for a while after) was forced to admit and correct himself (if you scroll down to the bit about Lewin, you will see where and why you are wrong). Since I am guessing this is where you got the 'quote' from, you should back away slowly..
Quote-mining is dishonest Leo, as I said before, you should have known better. But if this is the tactic you are going to employ, do not get pissy when it all blows up in your face.
You can also see Gould's quote in full. I would suggest you read it and hopefully you will see where exactly you went wrong about the fossil record not supporting evolution. Quite the contrary..
actually it was a conference of 50 or so scientists, among them paleontologists and evolutionists.
i do not call this "a small meeting".
you also left out what dr. ayala had to say about the subject.
the validity of evolution as i was taught in school is most certainly questioned and is directly refuted by what was said in the article.
the fossil record is directly questioned by goulds proposed mechanism of "punctuated equilibrium".
yes, goulds "proposed" mechanism.
remember, the article states that most of his proposal went unsupported by actual data.
i have no idea how you can say that.
"certainly the record is poor"
so poor in fact that the theory NEEDED revised.
No, you weren’t. You’re lying again.
As has been clearly and unambiguously demonstrated to you, Gould does not agree that the fossil record is poor evidence for evolution. If you are intellectually dishonest and ignore all this and try to misconstrue Gould quotations again, I’ll ban you.
Mod note: Right, that’s it. leopold has been banned for 2 weeks for trolling.
Are we learning yet?
Mod Hat — Closure
Mod Hat — Closure
And on that note ....
Separate names with a comma.