Did Stephen Gould accomplish anything in science. Yes!!

As someone aware of accomplishment in science I note always people are celebrated as having accomplished something but didn’t actually do so.

Its a modern list but therefore I pay attention when folks are celebrated.

I bump into the late Stephen Gould a lot because of evolution/creation conflict.They made a big deal about him and at first glance i thought it was another case of hyping somebody because of a establishment agenda. likewise someone who sold books etc

Yet after reading a major summery of his ion evolution and his punctuated equilibrium contribution I came to a sincere different point of view.

For creationists and thinkers on origins everywhere Gould really did contribute something to stand the test of time.

Just one thing(although his observation that darwin’s idea really came from a constant equation of Darwin about small steps doing everything is a second point also well made but I think others noticed this too including me) should get attention.

That is that he demonstrates the fossil record proves evolution did not move through gradual steps like darwin and others demanded. Darwin was wrong. Evolution could only of moved through sudden(punctuated) episodes and then just wait till another such episode.

Using evolutionism’s own fossil record Gould proved the fossil record proved there was never gradual steps from fish to rhinos.

The fossil record is complete enough and destroys the old Darwin claims. its over if evolutionism embraces the fossil record.

Now creationism rejects the fossil record as not a record and not a biological evidence for a biological theory. However evolutionists do embrace the fossil record!

So they must surrender that the fossil record does not show evolution going on as it would if it was true. Now PE is just a desperate reply to fix the problem. Thats another issue.

however gould’s proof of the failure of the fossil record is a deadly strike at fossil evidence having any proof of evolution. not just gradualism being disproved.

i think this is smelled out and why PE and Gould are already forgotten. i never find evolutionists bring up PE. Its unwelcome because its based on the fossils saying NO to evolutionary progression.

So Stephen Gould’s academic proven of the fossil record failure is a accomplishment in the science of origins. He meant to replace it with another idea but still his proof was the only important thing.

Creationists hinted about it but didn’t prove it in a systematic way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 thoughts on “Did Stephen Gould accomplish anything in science. Yes!!”

  1. MungMung

    Stephen J. Gould published many articles. Subsequently, many of his articles were published in books. Then he wrote a book that outweighed them all. When all is said and done, it appears that there is no structure at all to evolutionary theory.

  2. Flint

    Gould’s argument was that (1) Most (not all) evolution occurs through speciation; (2) speciation itself occurs relatively rapidly and locally; and (3) Most species, once the branching event is complete, undergo little or no further changes, even if this means extinction.

    The fossil record is much like extracting at random about one frame of a thousand from a movie. Some of the overall plot of the movie might survive, but none of the details of the story. To the willfully dishonest, this can be trumpeted as “proof” that the action in the original movie was discontinuous.

    Nowhere does Gould argue in favor of saltation (he rejects it frequently and emphatically). His point is that a great deal of gradual change can occur between the rare preserved frames in life’s movie.

    We don’t see much mention of PE because it is an argument against “constant speedism”, a notion nobody seriously supported in the first place. Gould is considered to have belabored the obvious – evolution is a very gradual process. Even branching events can take millions of years to complete.

  3. Robert Byers Post author

    Mung:
    Stephen J. Gould published many articles. Subsequently, many of his articles were published in books. Then he wrote a book that outweighed them all. When all is said and done, it appears that there is no structure at all to evolutionary theory.

    Well I was on about practical evidence. i’m saying he provided/proved practical evidence for the fossil record not showing evolution. not at all.
    A direct rejection, he articulated, against Darwin.
    he came up with a solution but its still proof of a rejection of evolution by fossil evidence.
    A creationist should of done it but a evolutionist did.

  4. Robert Byers Post author

    Flint:
    Gould’s argument was that (1) Most (not all) evolution occurs through speciation; (2) speciation itself occurs relatively rapidly and locally; and (3) Most species, once the branching event is complete, undergo little or no further changes, even if this means extinction.

    The fossil record is much like extracting at random about one frame of a thousand from a movie. Some of the overall plot of the movie might survive, but none of the details of the story. To the willfully dishonest, this can be trumpeted as “proof” that the action in the original movie was discontinuous.

    Nowhere does Gould argue in favor of saltation (he rejects it frequently and emphatically). His point is that a great deal of gradual change can occur between the rare preserved frames in life’s movie.

    We don’t see much mention of PE because it is an argument against “constant speedism”, a notion nobody seriously supported in the first place. Gould is considered to have belabored the obvious – evolution is a very gradual process. Even branching events can take millions of years to complete.

    Many points.
    yes he said evolution happened quickly in “species” . These events would however lead that species to keep evolving.not stop.

    HIS POINT was that the fossil record was not like a frame. Rather it was very good and demonstrated gradualism was not true. Plenty of frames to draw that conclusion.
    So evolution, he would say, would be hidden in the frames not shown. Yet they are shown enough to conclude(and so reject) Darwins idea of gradual steps. PE demands quick actions and then finished.
    This is really a remedy to the finding that the fossil record proves no evolution goes on as it should if it happened as darwin hypothesized.
    Gould saw himself as the Einstein correcting newton.
    So its not RARE PRESERVED FRAMES but instead evolution is quick and so hidden. Plenty of fossils exist to demonstrate this is his point.

    PE was not against constant speedism. It was not obvious. tHat was his bitching complaint. he WAS proving it could only be in fast episodes bECAUSE the fossil record proved it was not gradual in any way.
    iN fact evolution was so rare in nature that it rarely was shown in the fossils. Not a problem with fossil sampling.
    PE is ignored , i think, because they , like you, were not persuaded evolutionism was proven not to happen if the fossil record matters.
    So people act as if pE was not true and changed nothing.
    however it changed something about fossil evidence for evolution.
    it proved there was none. NONE. A disaster that Gould ignored because he thought he had a winning bettyer idea. However he damaged evolutionism in reality.
    Its up to creationists to keep his accurate investigative conclusion alive.

Leave a Reply