Steven Gould and Uncle Don Carney

Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 09:23 am
Uncle Don Carney was the most popular childrens show on the radio waves in and around NY in the heyday of radio until the day when, having finished his goodbye song and thinking the mike was off, he uttered the famous

"Well, I guess that takes care of the little bastards for another day".

I know, somebody is going to say that Snopes claims the entire story is an urban legend... My father heard the broadcast on the air and he tells me that he didn't normally listen to it but that his sister did and he'd gone to ask her some sort of a question and caught the thing as it happened; I.e. Snopes is full of ****.

Likewise, Steve Gould was a paleontologist and not an evolutionary biologist or anything of the sort. Starting from a point somewhere back in the 60s and 70s, evolutionary biology had become a dead hand over the entire field of paleontology; paleontologists simply were not being allowed to publish legitimate findings because they contradicted the dogmas of Darwinism as they pertained to the question of "intermediate fossils". And so, in order to make paleontology something which somebody could actually practice in the world, Gould, Eldredge, and a couple of others came up with what they apparently viewed as an appropriate concoction of BS to "hold the little bastards" (how they viewed evolutionists) not just for another night, but for all time, while they went about their profession unmolested.

Now, in the automative profession, there are a certain number of unscrupulous salesmen who have devised a sort of a variant of Adolf Hitler's "big lie" principle adapted to the requirements of salesmanship, which goes thus: If I tell some potential buyer a lie so overwhelmingly preposterous that nobody with any brains or talent or even the IQ you normally associate with dogs and cats could possibly buy off on it, then my conscience is clear; I don't have to feel sorry for the guy.

This is undoubtedly the way in which Gould and Eldredge managed to construct their theory without having to worry about losing sleep over feeling sorry for anybody. The fact that PE is basically idiotic didn't even bother them since they viewed the intended audience as idiots.

Punctuated equilibria amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change has occurred amongst very small groups of animals living in isolated or closed-in areas; these creatures supposedly develop some genetic advantage and then spread out and overwhelm the larger herds of the older animals. The theory claims to resolve two gigantic problems with classical Darwinism: the total lack of intermediate fossils, and the problems of population genetics particularly the Haldane Dilemma and the gigantic spans of time it would take to substitute ANY genetic change through any large herd of animals.

Nonetheless there are a number of huge problems with PE and requiring ALL animal species to have arisen in such a way is the same proposition as requiring Custer to win at Little Big Horn every day for billions of years.

Real scientific theories (as opposed to evolution) do not require being reinvented every ten or twelve years.

Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2008 10:03 am
Where do you come up with this crap.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 06:01 pm
Someone should have informed Gould when he still lived that he wasnt qualified to be the Agassiz Chair of Zoology at Harvard University.
Why should anyone believe gunga? because he has convinced himself and anything that gunga believes must be so, no?

If only your attempts at srgument werent mostly bald faced lies, you might be worth debating. As it is, gunga is merely a target for derision, and Im not as interested in namecalling as I once was.

I see that gunga has posted about 6 or 7 "evolution sucks" threads during the Labor day weekend.

I suppose he was taking a day off from his day job as science advisor for the Extremely Nasty Evangelical United Bretheren .
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2008 06:43 pm
If only your attempts at srgument werent mostly bald faced lies, you might be worth debating. As it is, gunga is merely a target for derisio....

You can tell a blowhard is rattled when he can't keep verb tenses or persons straight from one sentence to the next...

Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2008 11:58 am
I sometimes talk at you and sometimes around you. You are such fun to play with.

If you could falsify what Ive said , youd try, instead , youre only weapons are clipits and poor derision.

Having some bad days at the Tabernacle?
0 Replies
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 03:13 pm
Im surprised that gunga hasnt jumped in to try to find some piece of Creationist Science that is casting stones at Tiktaalik now that a well formed ichnofossil of a tetrapod footyprint was discovered in Poland.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 11 Jan, 2010 07:06 am
I'll say it again. Every version of evolution ever proposed so far with the possible exception of PE requires that the vast bulk of all fossils be intermediate types, and all anybody has ever found have been a tiny handful of very questionable cases including the intermediate fossil of the year which keeps coming up such as the one which farmerman mentions.

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London

PE of course has its own set of problems (i.e. is logically equivalent to demanding that Custer win at the Little Bighorn every day for billions of years) and for all of that does not really escape the logical requirement to produce vast numbers of intermediate fossils and not just the one or two questionable cases which evolosers turn up:


Alexander Mebane, Tampa Bay skeptics:

"But it may be questioned, on obvious probability grounds, whether this way of accounting for the observed absence of intermediates will really wash. Admitting that every intermediate stage "must have" a small population, we may nevertheless observe that there must have been a far greater number of them than of the stable, " finished" species known to us, since (according to the Darwinist picture) every species-transition must necessarily pass through several intermediate stages. That greater number would increase the likelihood that some intermediate forms, here and there, would chance to be preserved as fossils. And the dogma further requires that the larger transitions - between different genera, families, orders, classes, and even different phyla, must all have come about in just the same gradual and continuous manner, simply by a long- continued succession of normal species-transitions! We have all seen "genealogical trees" drawn by evolutionists, to show the order in which these taxonomic groups have all come into existence over a long period, by successive "branchings from a common root".

But it must be asked: Where are all the fossils that should have been left by the many millions of species that this tree requires to have once existed on its trunk, boughs, and branches, before its final branchings took place? Why are none of these seen in the fossil record of the period during which the evolutionists' tree requires them to have lived? (That this perhaps surprising charge does not exaggerate the real situation will be seen under "First Taxonomic Disconfirmation", where the explicitly contradicts Darwinian testimony of the "transformed cladists" will be presented.)

Moreover, why have none of this great multitude of Darwinian intermediate species chanced to survive unchanged to our own time, among the considerable number of ancient life-forms that, as we know, have had the luck to do so? You may perhaps have read that that actually ts the case: the lungfishes, the monotremes (platypus) and the hoatzin, among others, were at one time said to show us "living fossils" of "primitive" life at a stage that was still intermediate to two different later forms, and ancestral to both of them. But those claims are no longer heard; for, on closer investigation, all of these creatures turned out to be curious "mosaic" constructions of a kind that could not rationally be seen as representing the real historical transitions between one group and another. (See Denton's book for a detailed exposition of these cases.) The recent discovery' of that living fossil par excellence, the coelacanth, was an exciting event for evolutionists, because these "lobe-finned" fish were supposed to have already begun to "evolve toward amphi- bians"; but when a well-preserved specimen was obtained, examination of its fins and its internal organs (previously unknown and only guessed-at) quashed that fond hope for some real confirmation of Darwin's ideas, and I think that you will no longer find coelacanths called "pre-amphibians".
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Steven Gould and Uncle Don Carney
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 03:30:56