Evolutionists, what do you think about this quote from Stephen J. Gould?

Question

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." - Stephen J. Gould
(There are many more quotes like this that show darwinian evolution is not supported by the evidence).

Answer 1

That statement was not a statement denying evolution. Of course, anyone can quote mine and repeat statements out of context. What did he say before and after that sentence? When, where and why did he state it? As I said we can all quote mine but you must expect to be called on it.



The fossil record is sparse. It is no secret. It is creationists who are fixated on fossils, not scientists. We know the fossil record is sparse. We know why. Fossilisation is rare. Many organisms will never fossilise because of the soft materials from which their bodies are made. Almost every dead organism is decomposed. Fossilisation is rare. To find a fossil you need to be looking in the right place at the right time. That is at the time when the geology of that location has exposed the fossil. What would be surprising would be huge numbers of fossils.



Fossils are simply a bonus for evolutionary biology. It is not the only evidence of evolution and it certainly is not the best. There are lots of other forms of evolution, which are much better and fully suppport evolution.



What Gould was also pointing out is the concept of punctuated equilibrium. He was saying that evolution does not happen is a neat linear manner at a set pace. Take natural selection. It can slow down evolution. It an environment is very stable over a long period of time and the vast majority of the members of a population in that environment are well adapted to it evolution will occur at an extremely slow rate. The selection pressure is not to change but to remain well adapted. A sudden change in the environment would force a selction pressure on the population. This would result in a faster rate of evolution. This is what Gould means. He says that evolution does not happen at a constant pace. There will be periods when a population hardly evolves and times when there will be much faster evolution.

Answer 2

Tiktaalik





"Creationist critics often charge that evolution cannot be tested, and therefore cannot be viewed as a properly scientific subject at all. This claim is rhetorical nonsense." -- Stephen Jay Gould



"Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty." -- Stephen Jay Gould



"Life began three and a half billion years ago, necessarily about as simple as it could be, because life arose spontaneously from the organic compounds in the primeval oceans." --Stephen Jay Gould



"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." --Stephen Jay Gould

Answer 3

That quote is a statement of the reality of the fossil record, and the basis for his proposal that evolution does not proceed continuously and gradually. He instead came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium (PE). PE states that once a new species has come into existince, it will change little if at all and then it will become extinct. Sometimes, a new species may evolve from an old species, and the differences between these 2 species happen while the new species comes into existence. His theory is well supported by the fossil record. Since humans evolved 150,000 years ago, we have not changed much. Humans evolved from an African population of Homo erecuts, and there are no intermediates between us and Homo erectus. Homo erectus in turn evolved 1.8 million years ago and it changed little over that span of time, eventually becoming extinct after we evolved.

Answer 4

Did you not read the quote yourself? He stated that the fossil record contains precious little. From where did you infer that the fossil record contains none? Besides, he said a wee bit more than that which you conveniently left out. (Quote mining, eh?)



It is a known fact that the vast majority of fauna that have existed on this planet have not left a fossil record. But those that have yield a staggering amount of data in support of biological evolution.



Rather than come out with a facile claim that the late Stephen Gould dismissed Darwinian evolution, I suggest that you actually learn how to not only read the words but digest the content they convey rather than rashly jump to conclusions which you optimistically believe confirm your religiously drugged-induced need to cling to your long-dismissed fantasies.



A word of advice:

If you are going to persist in your science denial, don't make the mistake of using a bona fide scientist to do so. There are plenty of fairground frauds, hucksters and ignoramuses such as Ham, Comfort, the Hovind clowns, etc that you can appeal to. At least that way, you can give rational people a little light entertainment in displaying your own ignorance.

Answer 5

If I'm not mistaken, Gould said that in Scientific American some 30 or so years ago. A lot more fossils have been identified since then, including transitionary forms. In fact, every fossil could be said to be a transitionary form because evolution is slow but constant, but the anti-science types can't comprehend that.

Answer 6

Stephen J. Gould was not a creationist! He theorized that there were periods of rapid evolution I think, thus explaining the gaps. I don't know how that controversy turned out. Why don't you ask an expert on biological evolution? Could it be that you don't give a crap about learning anything, you just want your sky-daddy to be real?

Answer 7

Point 1) Evolutionist is a ridiculous word invented by creatard nutcases in a misguided attempt to marginalize scientific knowledge that everyone on the planet except small minded brain-dead religitard numb-skulls acknowledge as proven fact.



Point 2) You butchered the quote to make it appear as if something was said or implied that wasn't which isn't all that surprising because religitard a$$hats routinely lie through their teeth for Jesus and more often than not reinvent or alter facts in the hopes that their audience is as stupid as they are. Rolls eyes

Answer 8

Gould was a proponent of the "punctuated equilibrium" model for explaining the seemingly abrupt appearances of new species. He did not declare that the absence of evidence was evidence of absence (for transitional species), which is the idea that you are trying to promote. He would have rejected that outright.



The basic idea is that new species, truly distinct forms rather than variations on finches such as in the Galapagos, would not be expected to occur progressively throughout a large population, leaving evidence of "transitions", but instead would and could only happen in relative isolation.

Answer 9

I think it's accurate, and that fossils of transitional organisms are rare. They are rare, but they exist.



If more compelling evidence pointing to a better theory showed up today, I'd stop believing in evolution and start believing in that new theory. That's the cool thing about science: it's okay to be wrong, and to go back to the drawing board. It is also religon's greatest weakness. Religions are codified by infallible deities, so they are not allowed to be wrong. So instead, we see the hilarious backpedaling and rephrasing that theists continually go through. Every day, theists must insist that there was another mistranslation, a newly discovered misinterpretation, or whatever feat of logical contortionism to cover up the new hole exposed in their mythology that day.

Answer 10

The following quotes come right after the quote you referred to:



"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it 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, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.



"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .



"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.



A more correct citation would be:



Gould, Stephen J. 1980. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.

Answer 11

Given that Darwin pointed out quite clearly WHY that's the case in the fossil record, and that Gould had no intention of suggesting any flaw in the proofs of the theory of evolution, I don't see any problem here beyond your own misunderstanding.







When we see any structure highly perfected for any particular habit, as the wings of a bird for flight, we should bear in mind that animals displaying early transitional grades of the structure will seldom have survived to the present day, for they will have been supplanted by their successors, which were gradually rendered more perfect through natural selection. Furthermore, we may conclude that transitional states between structures fitted for very different habits of life will rarely have been developed at an early period in great numbers and under many subordinate forms. Thus, to return to our imaginary illustration of the flying-fish, it does not seem probable that fishes capable of true flight would have been developed under many subordinate forms, for taking prey of many kinds in many ways, on the land and in the water, until their organs of flight had come to a high stage of perfection, so as to have given them a decided advantage over other animals in the battle for life. Hence the chance of discovering species with transitional grades of structure in a fossil condition will always be less, from their having existed in lesser numbers, than in the case of species with fully developed structures.

-- Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species" (sixth edition, 1872)





I may here recall a remark formerly made, namely, that it might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely, throughout the world.

-- Darwin, Ibid.

Answer 12

As an evolutionist, I think that quote from Stephen J. Gould is cherry picked and out of context, as all quotes from creationist sources invariably are.



As for quotes showing that Darwinian evolution is not supported by the evidence, take a look at the following quote TO THE CONTRARY by CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about the evidence for evolution.



"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.



"I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)



"Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory."



But, of course, since he is a creationist, he then goes on to say:



"That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution."



http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html



So there you have it. The Bible is the word of god, period, and the facts be damned. And that is the attitude of creationists regardless of whether they know anything about the evidence for evolution or not.



At least Professor Wood is honest in saying that his rejection of evolution is a matter of faith rather than resorting to lies and deceit in an attempt to disprove it, as the lying promoters of creationism do in their despicable web sites and books.



As for a lack of transitional fossils, what are those below? Chopped liver?

.

Answer 13

He meant that evolution is not a continuous gradual process but goes in steps. A form of life stays mostly as it is until external factors necessitate greater change at one period of time.

Gould wrote books on evolution and campaigned against creationism.

Answer 14

THAT YOU LIE!!!!!!!



Most of Gould's empirical research was based on the land snail genera Poecilozonites and Cerion. He also contributed to evolutionary developmental biology, and has received wide praise for his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. In evolutionary theory he opposed strict selectionism, sociobiology as applied to humans, and evolutionary psychology. He campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or "magisteria") whose authorities do not overlap"

Answer 15

Good hell, you people are morons. "All I need to do is find ONE out of context quote from a scientist that makes it sound like he thinks evolution is wrong! Then it'll ALL JUST MAGICALLY GO AWAY and we can all get back to singing hymns and burning witches!!"



What you ******* idiots don't seem to be able to grasp is that EVOLUTION IS NOT BASED ON THE MAGIC WORDS OF FAMOUS SCIENTISTS. IT IS BASED SOLELY AND ENTIRELY ON EVIDENCE. No matter how many words you dredge up, change, lie about, twist, and contort, the EVIDENCE will still be there.

Answer 16

I think it is yet another example of quote mining. A quote is ripped from its context and meaning is distorted to deceive a naive audience. Creationists are notorious for doing this. Who hasn't heard Darwin's eye quotation?



In context the quote from Gould is along these lines:



"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189)



[Following right after]



"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question. Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing? The concept of preadaptation provides the conventional answer by permitting us to argue that incipient stages performed different functions. The half jaw worked perfectly well as a series of gill-supporting bones; the half wing may have trapped prey or controlled body temperature. I regard preadaptation as an important, even an indispensable, concept. But a plausible story is not necessarily true. I do not doubt that preadaptation can save gradualism in some cases, but does it 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, and I invoke two recently supported cases of discontinuous change in my defense.



[Snip discussion of boid snakes, pocket gophers, kangaroo rats and pocket mice]



"If we must accept many cases of discontinuous transition in macroevolution, does Darwinism collapse to survive only as a theory of minor adaptive change within species? . . .



[Snip discussion of non-Darwinian theories of discontinuous change in species.]



"But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.



A more correct citation would be:



Gould, Stephen J. 1980. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters" in The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (paperback), p. 189.



You can find this and other examples of creationists misrepresentations by following the link in my sources. Not that any of this matters to you.

Answer 17

I think you're taking it way out of context so you can try to validate your absurd belief in magical zombie jews and sky fairies.



Evolution is a Scientific Theory. That means you have LOST the 'war' to make it look stupid. It's been proven. Anyone who can't accept that at this point is simply a retard. There's no other word that fits so well for them.

Answer 18

I think you are lying (by omission), cos you specifically omitted the following bit of the quote which is :-



"Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]),



you then continue as if the bit you refer to is supposed to be against darwinian evolution when the writer says the opposite



and THAT makes you a creationist liar (one of many)

Answer 19

Creationists are fixated on fossils. Fossils are almost irrelevant in establishing the theory of evolution.



Fossils of our ancestors do show changes in our skeletal form over the pst couple of million years. Yes there are "gaps in the fossil record. But when ever a new fossil is found in the "gap" it just adds more "gaps". When many more human ancestorial fossils are found there will be more and more and "gaps" for creationists to point to.



Try Googling "The fossil history of the horse". You'll see dozens of fossils of the horse as it evolved from a small mammal to the horse of today. (But, I warn you. There are a lot of "gaps".)

Answer 20

Yes there are major gaps as pointed out in "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis" by Denton.

Answer 21

I think you are a LSOS.



That is why he formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium in natural selection. Your quote is dishonest. Gould knew natural selection was the key mechanism of evolution but he disagreed with a slow and steady pace and instead saw it as more rapid and periodic.

You dishonor that brilliant man by distorting the meaning of what he was saying to make it seem like he rejected evolution by natural selection. Creationists like you are dishonest lying sacks of shi it.

Answer 22

You really need to work on your reading comprehension...



That's all I saw in your question..



You obviously know nothing of him and selectively quoting him for your own claims just shows the type of person you are... if you care, I'm guessing a troll...



IMHO

Answer 23

The Bible tells us, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). While that is the essence of the believer's hope, it is a worthy definition that applies to evolution as well:



"substance of things hoped for" - the evolutionist "hopes" that the Bible is not true

"the evidence of things not seen" - the entire record of Creation contains nothing to substantiate evolution

Answer 24

Just as well evolution isn't based on fossil records then.

Answer 25

1. Fossils are the last and least form of evidence for biological evolution. The knowledge of the fact of evolution and a theory or theories of how it works would exist if no fossils had ever been found. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was based on detailed comparison of the anatomies of existing organisms with fossils as minor hints that organisms in the past might not have been quite the same as modern forms and that many fossil species no longer existed. The mere fact that some species no longer existed was difficult for the religious to swallow.



Over the past century, biological evolution it has been mostly based on genetics and has been defined that way since 1940. If you want fossils, look in the many terabytes of genome sequences on record for such curiosities as inactivated endogenous retroviruses.



2. Whether a theory of biological evolution is Gouldian, Darwinian, Lamarckian, Aristotelian or Callithumpian is of no importance to the actual existence of biological evolution, just as combustion of fuels exists, whatever theory or lack of theory is applied.



3. When a young Earth creationist quotes a leading or obscure scientist, it is certain that they have done so out of context. And there we have it, Neshama has caught you quoting dishonestly out of context, as expected.



What lie are you going to try next? Here are 18 that I recalled seeing a year ago



1. Lie - There is evidence of a global flood - virtually every fundamentalist. Fact - No evidence of a global flood has ever been found, and ordained clergymen were among the first to go looking



2. Lie - Charles Darwin recanted from his theory of evolution just before he died - Lady Hope, about 1920 and interminably repeated ever since. Fact. Lady Hope was not with Darwin when he died and the claim was rejected by Darwin's daughter in the 1920s, who was at the bedside.



3. Lie - The modern Wadjak skulls were found nearby and at about the same level as the Java man fossils. - Duane Gish, 1979. It has been repeated from time to time for years, including several years ago in a book published by a journalist in the USA. Fact - The Solo River where the Java man remains were found is about 105 miles from Wadjak.



4. Lie - The Piltdown fraud was intended to "prove evolution" - Just about every fundamentalist. Fact - The fraud was an habitual forger of antiquities and was trying to be admitted to a society of antiquarians.



5. Lie - The Piltdown fraud fooled all scientists - Fact - Not Marcellin Boule, Ales Hrdlicka, Gerrit Miller or Ernest Lenoir. By 1927 even an English scientist, Grafton Elliot Smith who had originally been fooled wrote that the jaw might have been from a chimpanzee.



6. Lie - Lord Solly Zuckerman studied the "Lucy" fossils for more than 13 years - Duane Gish, 1982. Fact - The fossil was only found in 1974. Eight years is not more than 13, and it's doubtful that Lord Zuckerman ever saw the fossil, as he had mostly retired from science. Though Gish was corrected, he continued to repeat that little fib throughout the 1980s.



7. Lie - "I am not a liar." - Duane Gish. Fact - Multiple examples of his deliberate and persistent lying, including about the bombardier beetle, "Lucy" and "Java man".



8. Lie - All or most fossils were laid down in a global flood - Andrew Snelling, Ken Ham and others. Fact - The amount of sediments through which fossils may be found could not possibly have been deposited in the few hundred days the Bible says the water was up.



8. Lying claims about "polystrate" tree fossils. Fact These carefully ignore the fact that where these occur some tree bases are at different levels in different sedimentary layers.



9. Lie - The Grand Canyon was formed by a great rush of water after the flood - Ham, Snelling and others. Fact. This is utter tosh. Fast flowing water does not form meanders which you can prove with a gently sloping heap of soil and a garden hose.



10. Lie - The decay rates of radioactive isotopes are variable and so radiometric dating is false - assorted fundamentalists. Fact - Some isotopes have slightly variable decay rates. None of them are in the decay chain from isotopes of uranium or thorium to isotopes of lead. Even if they were, the differences would be tiny, less than 0.2%.



11. Lie - Dating of marine animal remains shows that carbon dating is false. Fact - It has been known for 52 years why it does not work on marine organisms and is dubious on river or lake animals or plants. Therefore it is not used on such things.



12. Lies - Faked calculations of the probability of forming enzymes or other proteins - Henry Morris, about 1970. Fact - They might look convincing to anyone who doesn't know anything about proteins but it won't fool those who do. Same applies to DNA and RNA sequences.



13. Lie - There has been a rapid deceleration of the velocity of light over the past several thousand years, it was infinite at one time - Barry Setterfield and others, 1980s. Fact - Checked by mathematicians in the early 1980s and found to have several errors, all of which lead to the result wanted by Setterfield. Funny, that.



14. Lie - Lack of fossil evidence disproves evolution Fact. - Evolution is not about fossils and never has been.



15. Lie - There are human and dinosaur footprints beside each other in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas - Carl Baugh and other liars. Fact - Answers in Genesis correctly states that these are frauds but continues to promote the idea of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time. Is Baugh a commercial rival?



16. Lie - I have a Phd - Kent Hovind. Fact - His "thesis" would have been rejected by an high school teacher, let alone a PhD supervisor.



17. Lie - The second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution - various fundamentalists. Fact - They carefully omit the fact that the second law applies only to closed systems and the Earth is not a closed system.



18. Lie - Scientists were fooled by a Chinese fraud fossil recently publicised in National Geographic. Fact. - No they were not, the fraud was detected by the first qualified person who looked at it.



You have no credibility at all and your religion has been corrupted by parasites like Ham, Comfort and Hovind.

Answer 26

Evolution is a lie, dear.

Answer 27

And another fundie lie - quote mine.

Answer 28

it would appear to be incorrect

he died 14 years ago and things have moved on

Answer 29

Beautifully mined, like so many before it.

Answer 30

Quote-MINES, aka LIES, from creationist sites. You must be new, or think we are.

Answer 31

evolutionist admitting that evolution has no foundation



no transition fossils

none between invertebrates and fish

none between fish and amphibians

none between amphibians and reptiles

none between reptiles and mammals or birds

none between mammals and man