The once accepted? Punctuated equilibrium is currently accepted. REGARDLESS, you are relying on what you want again, not on facts. You want the need by evolutionary theory for millions of transitional fossils to exist, but it just doesn't.
Oh, it was refuted, huh? By who? I'd love to see a source for your claims, but of course I doubt I will ever.
BFSmith@764, no one is saying that Duncan McDougall didn't measure a loss of 21 grams in one of his 1907 experiments with the moment of death. Even if the result cannot be replicated, not a darn soul (no pun intended) is saying that McDougall's experience never happened. It's just not valid to base a conclusion upon.
So you are stating, for the record, that you believe punctuated evolution is what you believe to be true. That a mouse gave birth to a bat, a hippopotamus gave birth to a whale and a dog gave birth to a horse? (or something like that)
You mean 'punctuated equilibria', right? You mean if GraspingforPeace believes your distorted nonsense? I don't think he does, NaturalBorn. I don't see how anyone could, really.
By punctuated evolution I mean the belief that life evolved in steps, one creature gave birth to another different evolved creature. Or Gradual evolution, the belief that life evolved on very small step at a time. Unless there is another, new explication I have never read about.
If you mean the theory of punctuated equilibrium then please use that term. Evolution has been found to work both rapidly and less rapidly, as well as everything in between. So it's not a matter of either accepting or dismissing Gould and Eldredge's theory, - punctuated equilibrium is an expression of gradual change. By the way, one creature giving birth "to another different evolved creature" is true for each an every individual being born. Both you and I are different from our respective parents, so we both present gradual changes from our respective onsets, also known as evolution. So you may also want to work on how you term these things.
The only people who use that term that way are creationists. That is not what biologists mean by "punctuated." Such an event (like a horse giving birth to a bat, etc.) would actually go a long way to disprove evolution.
More evolved, less evolved, what's your point? Evolution means a progress of some sort unfolding from a point of a reference, whether it's societal, economic or ancestral evolution. If a parent represents one state then a child of that parent represents a change from that state. That's evolution.
There is a huge gulf between how creationists define these terms and how biologists define these terms.
Nah. Replace the two occurrences of "parent" in the sentence above with "economy" and we still have a description of the concept of evolution.
Quoting you: "Individuals are not a more evolved rendition of their parents." That statement is correct.
Uh, it was a direct quote. He left off the redundant question that followed it, but he quoted you word-for-word using the exact same punctuation you did.
We are not debating with you NB. To be a debate would mean that you have at least a passing knowledge of the subjet at hand, which you lack. You grammar is quite secondary.
I don't really care about your grammar. This is an internet forum. I don't have any problem understanding what you write, so whatever. I make grammatical errors on here all of the time. You made a statement that someone else quoted and confirmed. No one is picking on your grammar. Even if you meant it as a question, he answered it for you.
Nobody can prove if there is a God or not. It's just some take comfort in the thought. Why attack that?
If I had no reason to be a capitalist, would that be an attack on people 'taking comfort' in being capitalists?
