Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Why I am Not An Atheist- Lack of Evolution Evidence

with 14 comments

Why I am not an Atheist- Lack of Evolution Evidence

Evolutionist have a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium, that is grand title, which argues that evolution was not gradual but had periods of stability. Has the lack of fossil evolution evidence played a part?

Lack Of Evolution Evidence leads To Punctuated Equilibrium Retreat

Really these guys will not be putting forward this new theory if their case was strong. It is not easy for them to come out and admit that they have lied to us for years. Evoltion is a Conspiracy, there is plenty of evidence to prove that this theory has been over inflated, it has never had trouble receiving funding.

Evolution,
Punctuated Equilibrium,
Evolution Conspiracy,
Fossil evidence
Atheism
Advertisements

Written by dawkinswatch

March 19, 2009 at 12:25 pm

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Dawkinswatch: he’s ever the idiot. Punctuated Equilibrium isn’t new. It usually refers to cladogenesis, which has been a mainstay of evolution since the “Modern Synthesis”. As such, it’s perfectly consistent with gradualism (phyletic change).

    DW, It’s been a while, but you still have the knowledge of a third-grader.

    Dan

    March 19, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  2. “Evolutionist have a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium, that is grand title, which argues that evolution was not gradual but had periods of stability. Has the lack of fossil evolution evidence played a part?”

    Actually it’s not a “new” theory. It is one theory as to why there may appear to be some stability in the changes in some species and the apparently abrupt appearance of others. This is but one way to explain apparent “gaps” in the fossil record. Your “evolution evidence” link (to one of your previous posts) is a pretty lame link.

    “Really these guys will not be putting forward this new theory if their case was strong.”

    The “case” IS strong, can you disprove it? That will settle everything.

    “…there is plenty of evidence to prove that this theory has been over inflated…”

    I would like to see your evidence. I would also like to see your alternative and the evidence to support whatever your alternative may be.

    Nobody

    March 19, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  3. That’s how science works. When you receive new information, you change you’re thinking. The fact that scientific theories change isn’t evidence of a lie or a grand conspiracy, it’s evidence that the science is working. Heck, physics changed when Einstein came along. Or are you arguing that physics is a conspiracy, too?

    Personal Failure

    March 19, 2009 at 2:17 pm

  4. It is new as far as it was not in the Origin of Species.

    Charles Darwin never advocated it.

    dawkinswatch

    March 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm

  5. Charles Darwin never advocated it.

    Advocated publicly? I’m not sure. The term ‘punctuated equilibrium’ certainly hadn’t been invented yet, but then again, Darwin himself did not use the words ‘evolution’ or ‘evolve’ in The Origin either.

    He certainly however took the position of gradualism, but this is an ambiguous term, not specifying that gradual change is necessarily at a constant rate. And indeed, Darwin did argue at various points in his papers and notebooks for varying rates of change, ranging from nearly static to quite rapid change.

    Moreover, while he was not settled on whether speciation occurred biogeographically or in ecological niches or both, Ernst Mayr argued that both are the same thing as what contemporary paleontologists call ‘punctuated equilibrium’.

    So while Darwin certainly didn’t use the term, he arguably did advocate ‘punctuated equilibrium’.

    Dan

    March 23, 2009 at 2:11 pm

  6. Specific quote on Darwin and Punctuated Equilibrium directly from The Origin of Species (fourth edition):

    I have attempted to show that the geological record is extremely imperfect; that only a small portion of the globe has been geologically explored with care; that only certain classes of organic beings have been largely preserved in a fossil state; that the number both of specimens and of species, preserved in our museums, is absolutely as nothing compared with the incalculable number of generations which must have passed away even during a single formation; that, owing to subsidence being almost necessary for the accumulation of deposits rich in fossils and thick enough to resist future degradation, enormous intervals of time have elapsed between most of our successive formations; that there has probably been more extinction during the periods of subsidence, and more variation during the periods of elevation, and during the latter the record will have been least perfectly kept; that each single formation has not been continuously deposited; that the duration of each formation is, probably, short compared with the average duration of specific forms; that migration has played an important part in the first appearance of new forms in any one area and formation; that widely ranging species are those which have varied most frequently, and have oftenest given rise to new species; that varieties have at first been local; and lastly, although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition. [p410]

    It is hard to find a better summary of punctuated equilibrium, especially the bit I have bolded. Certainly, Darwin was changing his emphases over time in response to criticism and suggestions – which any decent thinker ought to do. But in no way did he ever rely on a steady rate of change view.

    Dan

    March 23, 2009 at 2:21 pm

  7. When Steve Gould and Niles Eldridge described Punctuated Equilibrium in 1972, it generated some buzz. The fossil record certainly contains periods of stasis and periods of adaptive radiation for any lineage, but the “hopeful monster” aspect of it caused some biologists to refer to Punc Eq as Lamarckism. The discovery of Homeobox genes in 1983 and the rise of the science of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (“Evo Devo”) in the 90’s has shown how simple genetic change can have a significant impact on development and body form.
    Essentially, Punc Eq describes the pattern of evolution, not the mechanism.

    BudgetAstronomer

    March 24, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  8. This is an admission that Evolution has not been obseved and that it is a just theoretical case.

    dawkinswatch

    March 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm

  9. DW (aka Idiot),
    Did you actually read any of the above, or do you just have a chronic case of ignorexia verbosa? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. 🙂

    Dan

    March 25, 2009 at 1:05 pm

  10. Scene: A beach, with a trail of footprints in the moist sand left by the retreating tide. Two scientists examine the footprints, while Dawkinswatch looks on.
    Scientist 1: “I think these are a woman’s footprints. Notice the size of the foot compared to the length of gait. Smallish feet, probably a woman.”
    Scientist 2: “Could be, but note that the prints are shallow, indicating the person was quite light. It could have also been a boy, maybe a pre-teen.”
    Scientist 1: “I see what you mean. To know for certain, we should follow these prints and look for more evidence.”
    Dawkinswatch: “Gentlemen, since you are both scientists and disagree with each other, it is clear that you must both be wrong. Also, since nobody actually saw a person walking here, you cannot say for sure that anyone did, therefore there was no one here.”

    Bipedal Tetrapod

    March 26, 2009 at 12:41 pm

  11. This topic is quite hot on the Internet right now. What do you pay the most attention to while choosing what to write ?

    How to Get Six Pack Fast

    April 15, 2009 at 3:42 pm

  12. […] What if there is no proof of Evolution? Then Atheist have to become fanatical in their insistence that Evolution is true. Is this not what […]

  13. It’s ok, evolution scared me too when I was a christian. So much that I was afraid to research for myself because I thought that God would be angry. Why don’t you research the topic so that you can find evidence against? Betcha 10 bucks you can’t. Check out the fossil records.

    moriahbethany

    March 7, 2010 at 11:27 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: