From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The old age of earth argument (was Women teaching in Church)
Date: 23 Apr 1999 02:05:16 GMT

Darren R Middleton <> wrote:

> Tigger wrote in message <>...
> >Nathan Stewart wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe the criticism is raised because evolutionism, at least in
> some respects
> >
> >Heh heh. "Evolutionism". Are scientists that believe in gravity
> >following "gravitionalism"?
> >
> >> (and certainly historically), attempts to justify itself by the fossil
> record.
> >
> >Not only the fossil record. The fossil record is completely not required
> >to prove evolution, and could be thrown out the window with no major
> >change to evolutionay theory.
> >
> >> Since evolutionism raises the fossil record as some form of evidence of
> its
> >> claims it should not be sensitive to those who point out the gaps in
> that same
> >> record.
> >
> >But, the key point is this, evolutionists *expect* those gaps. Those
> >gaps are perfectly well predicted and explained by science, and are
> >therefore not acceptable as a criticism of the theory.
>
> G'day Tigger,
>
> Evolutionists predicated we would actually find the proof in fossils.
> Punctuated equilibrium is a more recent attempt to explain the fact that
> there is no such proof.
> Therefore, I'm not sure of the validity of your argument.

This is simply false. You've been reading misinformation again.
By all means give a citation.

Punctuated equilibrium is not an explanation of gaps; it is an
explanation of the varying rates of of change which are apparent
in the fossil record as the gaps are filled. There are plenty of
fossil lineages which have no significant gaps, but which still
demonstrate the phenomenon of punctuated equilibrium. In lineages
where there are large gaps, the reason is incompleteness of the
record; due to many possible factors.

The fossil record is secondary evidence which has indeed confirmed
the fact of evolutionary change. (And in science, we use the word
proof of this kind of confirmation.) The problem is that as more
and more evidence accumulated we were able to see more clearly
concerning not just the fact of change, but actual variation of
the RATES of change.

If a particular lineage is very incomplete, then the phenomenon
of punctuated equilibrium cannot be observed.

To illustrate. Let ABCDEFGHI....Z be a sequence of various forms.
In the early days, we had a record like this.


......B...........................M..................X...

This was sufficient to demonstrate the life now is not the same
as life then, and it is consistent with observations of evolution
in the present, leading to a reasonable hypothesis of a continuous
sequence of change for which we have only a few examples.

Later, with more discoveries, we have a record like this.


......B..B.........H............N.M.M......R.........X...

This is confirmation. (The N before M is deliberate; and intended
as a reminder that evolution does not really imply linear chains,
but branching bushes.)

Later, with more discoveries, we have a record like this.


A.A..BB.BBC.B.D.F.HH.H...H..K.MNN.MMMM.M.Q.RRSRRRR..XX.Z.

More confirmation, and also sufficient resolution to perceive
something interesting. The rates of change are not constant. We
tend to have long periods of time with relatively little change,
interspersed with periods of more rapid change.

THAT is punctuated equilibrium, nonsense from scientific
creationists notwithstanding.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart