"If you're going to claim that you quoted Gould quoting Darwin, then let's hear the context of Gould's quote. Can you find it or should I Google it for you?"
One hardly knows where to start. I gave you the name of the book and the very page number. My mistake was in assuming that you have any kind of background reading on the subject. I did not "claim" I quoted Gould quoting Darwin, I DID quote them both exactly. If you were up on the subject, you would have known that.
Try this. Buy the book, "The Panda's Thumb," by Evolutionist/Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, and read chapter 17, "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," from pages 179-185. Perhaps then you will have an inkling of what I am talking about. (You can get it used on Amazon for a few bucks).
"How exactly am I unclear on the concept? I believe I understand it perfectly well. Please be specific."
Hmmm. If you understand it so "perfectly well," how is it that you do not understand that the concept of gradualism is now passe, due to one simple fact: It is UNSUPPORTABLE BY THE EVIDENCE.
Is that clear enough? Even shameless phonies have to have some appearance of substance, and the fossil record simply does not demonstrate transitional forms.
That is why Gould came up with the mutated theory of punctuated equilibrium. Do you even know what that is??? Do you understand that it was intended to replace the embarrassingly-outmoded concept of gradualism???
No living person knew Charles Darwin. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let us assume he was a well-intentioned scientist intent on discovering the origin of man and all of life, apart from an act of special creation, as the Bible says.
So he asked an honest question, but the answer has come back showing, over and over and over again in a myriad of ways, that his premise was false.
It is therefore time to face the facts and the truth squarely, and destroy the unprovable myth of evolution, or at least, make it clear that as a theory, it has virtually no scientific basis whatsoever. It is, as has been alleged, a fairy tale for adults, and belongs on the trash heap of history.
Macroevolution is a belief system, as are all religions, that and nothing more. Believe it if you like, but do not try to justify it by science.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
You just don't get it. You seek to make my statement illegitimate by using your little fallacious red herring accusation of "quote mining." But I was quoting noted evolutionist and paleontologist S. J. Gould as he summarized Darwin on this point. Do you understand what it means to summarize? Gould quoted Darwin accurately, and no one up to this point has ever accused Gould of "quote mining."
That was HARDLY a summary of Darwin. Now THAT is a mischaracterisation, and I DO accuse you of that.
If you're going to claim that you quoted Gould quoting Darwin, then let's hear the context of Gould's quote. Can you find it or should I Google for it for you?
I took nothing out of context. Darwin said that the geological record would either buttress his position, or if later evidence did not show "interminable varieties" and "the finest graduated steps" between species, than it would be right and honest to reject his whole theory. Period, end of story, according to Darwin himself.
...and you're giving Darwin a 150-year deadline?
There CERTAINLY have been findings in the last 150 years, and many many more to come in the future. So far, Darwin's theory is being supplanted with more and more EVIDENCE. Why are you ignoring this?
But to say that the fossil record substantiates gradualism, is to reveal just how unclear you are on the concept. Mutating the theory does nothing to change the nature of the evidence.
How exactly am I unclear on the concept? I believe I understand it perfectly well. Please be specific.
In point of fact, gradualism is being snipped out of textbooks because, as Gould rightly said, evidence for it is just not in the rocks. The Burning Truth is in the rocks, and it is decidedly not in your favor.
Whch textbooks is gradualism being snipped out of? "Of Pandas and People"?
OK, I think we're gonna have to pull out some of the evidence on you in upcoming posts, because you're talking loud and saying nothing. Time for me to talk with papers and books in hand...
It is not "quote mining" to quote a single passage of what a person says. To say that entire pages have to be reproduced to remain intellectually honest, in the kindest way I can put it, is just silly. No one ever does that, and if you think more context needs to be provided to further your point, then please do so, without resorting to cheap debating tricks.
Let me give you an example.
"Reject my whole theory." - Darwin
True, he said it. True, it's in his book. Is it out of context? Yes. Does it represent what Darwin said in his book? No.
You are doing the EXACT SAME THING. How can you not understand this?
So in order to remain intellectually honest, YES, you need to give more than just one single sentence, or at least point to the full article from your quote. It's called an *annotated bibliography*. That's basic responsible writing and debating.
I don't know what you don't understand about my previous explanation of the full two paragraphs. In fact, you've avoided answering my questions altogether.
If you want to be continuing with this debate, I will absolutely start bringing out facts, finding the original quote from Gould, etc. So instead of accusing me of manipulating your position, I should find some success in finding how you manipulated Gould and Darwin's intents from your first words.