Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 296:
Line 296: − − The [[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory|evolutionary thinking of Richard Goldschmidt]] influenced Gould. In a 1977 in a paper entitled, ‘The Return of the Hopeful Monsters Gould wrote that when he studied evolutionary biology in graduate school that "official rebuke and derision focused upon [[Richard Goldschmidt]]". Nevertheless, Gould also wrote: − {{cquote|I do, however, predict that during this decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology.....As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages....In my own, strongly biased opinion, the problem of reconciling evident discontinuity in macroevolution with Darwinism is largely solved by the observation that small changes early in embryology accumulate through growth to yield profound differences among adults.<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_hopeful-monsters.html</ref>}} − − [[Harvard]] biologist and evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] wrote concerning the history of the theory of punctuated equilibrium: "Even though some of the statements of Eldredge, Gould, and Stanley, made in the 1970s, sounded as if they had favored the [[Goldschmidt's hopeful monster theory|Goldschmidtian version]], they clearly distanced themselves from it in their more recent discussions.<ref>Ernst Mayr, 1982a. Speciation and macroevolution. Evolution 36, page 1128</ref> Creation scientist Don Batten wrote concerning the history of punctuated equilibrium (PE): "By the time of their 21st anniversary review of PE, Gould and Eldridge had retracted to proposing PE as ‘a complement to [[phyletic gradualism]]’. This is a rather major backdown on the brashness of their claims in 1972, and especially Gould’s claims up to 1980..."<ref>http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref> Batten also wrote that Niles Eldredge had been "less dogmatic than Gould had been in the 1970s about the lack of gradual change in the fossil record".<ref>http://creation.com/punctuated-equilibrium-come-of-age</ref> − − According to Stephen Gould, Daniel Dennet and [[Richard Dawkins]], who hold to a traditional Darwinian gradualism view of the theory of evolution, trivialized the importance of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.<ref name="gouldstructure">http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html</ref> Dawkins called the theory of punctuated equilibrium "an interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of Neo-Darwinism theory". Dennet went farther and stated that the theory of punctuated equilibrium was a "a false-alarm revolution that was largely if not entirely in the eyes of the beholders."<ref name="gouldstructure" />
→Punctuated Equilibrium
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
Creation scientist Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding the implausibility of the theory of punctuated equilibrium and the implausibility of the idea of gradual evolution the following:
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}
{{cquote|...supporters of ‘jerky’ evolution [[saltationism]] and its relative, [[Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium|punctuated equilibria]]) point out that the fossil record does not show gradualism, and that the hypothetical transitional forms would be disadvantageous. But supporters of [[Phyletic gradualism|gradual evolution]] point out that large, information-increasing changes are so improbable that one would need to invoke a secular miracle. Creationists agree with ''both'': punctuational evolution can’t happen, and gradual evolution can’t happen—in fact, particles-to-people evolution can’t happen at all!<ref>[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory Refuting evolution]</ref>}}
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==
== Atheism and the evolutionary paradigm are religious in nature and legal implications ==