Matthews to Tancredo: Do you or don’t you believe in evolution?

Hey, how about this …. God mad evolution happen.

roux on May 7, 2009 at 10:07 AM

What a shocker. Good idea. Wonder why it’s so hard to consider?

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM

so why did gould and eldridge then come up with punctuated equilibrium? lack of transitions…

right4life on May 7, 2009 at 10:19 AM

No….

Lets let Dr. Gould speak for what his views are. In his “Evolution as Fact and Theory” published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes he wrote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg. In his “Evolution as Fact and Theory” published in the May 1981 issue of Discover reprinted in his Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes he wrote:

We [Gould and Niles Eldredge] proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kind of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuations and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether though design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled “Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution is a Hoax” states: “The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God revealed to us in the Bible.”

Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1949, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as “hopeful monsters.” (I am attracted to some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium…) Creationist Luther Sunderland talks of the “punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory” and tells his hopeful readers that “it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is connected to a common ancestor.” Duane Gish writes, “According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced.” Any evolutionist who believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is creationism—with God acting in the egg.

But admittedly I have not read his book. I am really only a geologist, not a geneticist or paleontologist etc.
Evolution is the change in the genetic pool.
I am no creationist-but I understand the role of God in creation.
There are transitional fossils, but not so far very many.
But they do exist.
And we see the change in a species over time right before our very eyes.
Why it is so hard for people to believe in the possibility that God created the laws of nature(in general) & used them to create everything we have now is beyond me.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM

BTW-Tancredo should have asked Matthews if he even knew what the theory of evolution was even about.
I am betting he doesn’t understand a ratt’s a$$ about it.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 12:37 PM

TheMightyMonarch on May 7, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Evolution=change in the genetic frequency in a gene pool.
That is testable & it does happen.
Mutation is rare & does happen, but only adds to the diversity of the gene pool.

Badger40 on May 7, 2009 at 12:39 PM