Darwin's Illusion

[gnostic]

And I've told you dozens of times that every word in the English language has dozens of meanings and I use them all. It is YOUR job to deconstruct my sentences to properly guess my meaning.

That’s a load of bs.

You accuse me of playing word game or semantics, and yet you expect me to do unnecessary homework on words that no one else you except you.

That’s is semantics, but twisted word games because you have your own definitions to the words you use.

Yes, the English language may have multiple meanings, but you adding your own definitions (that no one else know about) only add confusions to the English language.

You need to clarify what you mean, and not expect others to agree with your meanings when no one else understand your fabricated meanings.

There are no logic to what you are suggesting that other people must grasp what you say, when none of the definitions apply to the current words in English. In another word, all you are really doing is causing more confusions to the English language.

 

[cladking]

That is truly remarkable; not in the very least surprising, but truly remarkable.

When someone points out that you are playing word games you just double down on the word games. When they say you'll ignore the evidence for the 100th time you ignore the evidence again.

Of course rather than playing word games it's vaguely possible you aren't aware words have many meanings. God knows I can't get you to crack a dictionary. "English" doesn't have many meanings but every word in it does.

If you continue to fail to address ANYTHING I say then I will not respond further. You could go back and read the post (#2020).

 

[LIIA]

Of course they are. Examples have been given to you. We can see it in chalk beds where one traces the evolution of coccolithophores as one goes up. We can see the same with other micro-organisms.

I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused; I’ll explain further but you should make some effort to understand what the argument is about.

The context here is specifically "GRADUALISM” in the general sense and all what it entails, not merely some vague examples of micro-organisms or transitional species. Whether the hypothesis of gradualism is supported or not is not dependent on some examples, its dependent on the relative frequency of evidence (as stated by Gould and Eldredge).

In my post # 1992, I said, "Gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record; real world observations do not support it, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.”

You responded in #2000 (above) “Of course they are. Examples have been given to you"

Then in #2001 you refuted yourself when you said (below), “You seem to be fixated on gradualism and the fossil record. You will simply not see it with land species. Fossilization of land species is an incredibly rare event. So GRADUAL CHANGES ARE ALMOST NEVER SEEN".

Below is the quote from your post #2001

You seem to be fixated on gradualism and the fossil record. You will simply not see it with land species. Fossilization of land species is an incredibly rare event. So gradual changes are almost never seen.

You believe that one outlier making claims in the sciences is a "refutation". That is not how science works.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I don’t make claims; these are the declarations of top scientists in the field. See # 753 & # 781.

Again, who I am is not your concern, your concern is the specific points of my argument (see #1864), if you don’t agree with any of it, simply try to come up with some rational reasons to explain your position and I would attend to it, otherwise it's better for you to stay quiet. Can you do it?

 

[LIIA]

I do not understand your fixation with it. What Darwin saw during his lifetime was the first clear transitional species. But then you probably do not know what a transitional species is either. Archaeopteryx has both clear "bird" features and "dinosaur" features. It has an underdeveloped breast bone and other features that showed that it could have flown it was not as proficient of a flier as modern birds. It till had claws on its arms/wings. It had teeth. It had a long dinosaur tail.

Archaeopteryx is no longer the first bird and Archaeoraptor is a forgery.

Archaeopteryx:

July 2011, an article published by nature was titled, “Archaeopteryx no longer first bird”

The article said, “Mounting evidence shows famous fossil more closely related to Velociraptor.... Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature

Archaeoraptor:

March 2001, an article published by nature was titled, “The Archaeoraptor forgery”.

The article said, “Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined”.

The Archaeoraptor forgery | Nature

Wiki wrote, “Further scientific study showed it to be a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species.”

Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia

 

[cladking]

Again, who I am is not your concern, your concern is the specific points of my argument...

Unless you're a Peer believers simply ignore every word and in this case they are even ignoring Peers because they don't agree.

Believers can't even see evidence, observation, or logic with which they disagree and wouldn't recognize an anomaly if it bit them on the backside.

 

[LIIA]

Darwin did not need to see gradualism in the fossil record to confirm evolution. That is a red herring that you use all of the time.

In #1979, you responded to my argument against GRADUALISM that Darwin saw confirmation in the geological record in his lifetime. If your response is relevant to my argument, then the alleged confirmation should be a confirmation of gradualism. Do you understand?

Now you came back in #2001 and said, “Darwin did not need to see gradualism in the fossil record” then in the same post you added, "gradual changes are almost never seen" which means that you acknowledge the assertion of Gould and Eldridge that GRADUALISM IS VIRTUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD (See # 1256), the same assertion that you kept denying and relying on some irrelevant red herring as a distraction.

Your typical fallacious tactic is to present irrelevant info in your response as a distraction/escape from the point of discussion; you do that all the time to confuse the uninformed readers. This is exactly what “red herring” is; yet you accuse me of it to further distract the readers from realizing your tricks. You’re not tricking anyone but yourself. It’s pathetic.

That would be a waste of time since you have no points against evolution All you have is ignorance. But if you want to discuss DNA I am game.

Waste of time!! Seriously!! So, you think your mere disagreement with my argument without any justification is good enough, simply because you said so! This is pathetic. Why should I or anyone else take you seriously?

You don’t get to respond to any argument of your imagination or your preference; you are here to respond to my specific argument that you don’t agree with.

Go back to #1864, if you don’t agree with any of my points, you have to explain why and provide a rational response, if you can’t think of any, it’s better for you to stay quite rather than saying some nonsense about saving your time, after all you have thousands of posts on this forum and appear to have plenty of time to kill, don’t you? Your tricks and excuses are really pathetic.

But it doesn't. All it does is to tweak the theory a bit.

You wish, disproving all central assumptions of a theory (without any exception) is not a tweak; it’s a demolition of the theory. See #781.

Just because Einstein showed that Newton's work was incomplete we did not start to float away from the Earth. And just because some there were some changes in details does not mean that life is not the product of evolution. You did not understand your own sources and that was demonstrated to you.

A follower of Newton's work can only follow. Only leaders such as Einstein have the capacity/authority to reject or change. With respect to the ToE you’re a follower, that’s the extent of what you can do, you don’t get to say what is true or false, you merely follow but the leaders in the field, have the capacity/authority to reject/disprove and they sure did regardless of your denial or the dogmatic resistance. See#781 and #911.

LOL!! Oh my! Now there is some massive projection. You do not know what ad hominem is either. I did not use any. Corrections are not ad hominem. Observations are not ad hominem. You have been repeatedly shown to be wrong and simply will not acknowledge it.

Corrections! What corrections? Do you mean corrections of the kind “I have time to disagree but don’t have time to provide any justification” this is pathetic.

You imagine yourself to be some sort of authority and that makes your mere disagreement enough justification of your position. You need to know that "because you said so" is not enough and your reasoning is ridiculous. You are nothing but a follower of obsolete science. You don’t even understand that science is ever changing. Your rigid understanding is of the type that doesn’t evolve, it simply goes extinct.

You seem to be fixated on gradualism and the fossil record. You will simply not see it with land species. Fossilization of land species is an incredibly rare event. So gradual changes are almost never seen.

Yes, gradual changes are almost never seen. It took you a very long back and forth arguments to acknowledge this simple fact. (Try not to forget what you just acknowledged). Now, let’s move forward.

That said, the predictions of gradualism are not limited to the fossil record. An emergence of a variant is not a reason for the original species to go extinct. Both can coexist. If Fossilization is a rare event, why don’t we see numerous gradual variants among living species?

Darwin was aware of this issue about gradualism and mentioned it as one of the difficulties on his theory that he can never reflect on it without being staggered. He wrote in chapter 6 of The Origin of Species, “why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists never cease to amaze me.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I don’t make claims; these are the declarations of top scientists in the field.

Yet when those exact same scientists "make declarations" that you don't like, you just wave them away without thought (and then bizarrely say "I'm not cherry-picking").

For example, you quoted S.J. Gould on gradualism and presented his "declarations" as the final authoritative word. Yet the same S.J. Gould also said:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."​

Huh. Is S.J. Gould still an expert of such high regard that everyone here must heed his "declarations"? Somehow I'm guessing creationists will say no.

I've often wondered if this is what religion does to people, or if some folks were already like this and just naturally gravitated to religion. Either way, it's fascinating to behold.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’ll assume you’re genuinely confused; I’ll explain further but you should make some effort to understand what the argument is about.

The context here is specifically "GRADUALISM” in the general sense and all what it entails, not merely some vague examples of micro-organisms or transitional species. Whether the hypothesis of gradualism is supported or not is not dependent on some examples, its dependent on the relative frequency of evidence (as stated by Gould and Eldredge).

In my post # 1992, I said, "Gradualism is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record; real world observations do not support it, neither among living organisms nor in the fossil record.”

You responded in #2000 (above) “Of course they are. Examples have been given to you"

Then in #2001 you refuted yourself when you said (below), “You seem to be fixated on gradualism and the fossil record. You will simply not see it with land species. Fossilization of land species is an incredibly rare event. So GRADUAL CHANGES ARE ALMOST NEVER SEEN".

Below is the quote from your post #2001





Why is that so difficult for you to understand? I don’t make claims; these are the declarations of top scientists in the field. See # 753 & # 781.

Again, who I am is not your concern, your concern is the specific points of my argument (see #1864), if you don’t agree with any of it, simply try to come up with some rational reasons to explain your position and I would attend to it, otherwise it's better for you to stay quiet. Can you do it?

You are grasping at straws now. When your sources say that gradualism is virtually nonexistent then they are admitting that it does exist at leas to some extent. I have given examples to you. There are places where we do not expect to see it at all so a lack of gradualism in the fossil record is not a problem.

You lost this argument.

 

[LIIA]

You of course have no scientific evidence for your beliefs. The reason is that to have evidence you need a testable hypothesis. That is by definition. In the sciences one has to be willing to put one's money where one's mouth is.

First, my beliefs have nothing to do with the ToE being true or false. I never used my beliefs as a refutation of the ToE, did I?

Second, you fail to understand a simple logic. Science functions within a specific system with defined characteristics/laws, beyond the initiation point of that system, science doesn’t function. Science has jurisdictions/domain. God as the absolute first cause is external to that domain; you cannot get God to your lab to do experimentation. God is not a component nor confined within the laws of that system. Our system/realm is confined within spacetime, God is not confined within spacetime. The limitations of time/space (and all natural laws for that matter) don’t apply to God. You’re seeking the wrong kind of evidence that don’t apply; you’re trying to utilize the wrong tools in the wrong domain.

A beginning is a change, a change is a probability, a probability is a contingent being/entity. God is neither a probability nor a contingent being. God is the absolute existence that must logically exist to give rise to all relative probabilities.

You can't experiment on God. God is not an object that can be contained in a space or reflect light that you may see. It doesn’t work this way. You may refer to the posts below.

See # 1029
Darwin's Illusion | Page 52 | Religious Forums

See # 1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1854
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1861
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums

So, what are your beliefs about how life got to its present stages? What observations support that? And most important of all, what reasonable test based on your model could possibly refute it? If you cannot answer that question then by definition you do not have evidence

Again, science may observe an existing system and provide answers from within a system but can never address the initiation of the system. Science can neither explain the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago nor the beginning of life. You think you know or may eventually attain the knowledge, but you really don’t and will not, simply because it's beyond the scientific method of observation/experimentation, meaning beyond the jurisdictions/domain of science.

But logic in addition to observed manifestations from within the system can shed light on the logical need for the (absolute) causal influence and the attributes of that influence. Yet the nature of the influence can never be known. Neither the nature of God nor the intrinsic nature of any natural force can be known. This very concept is not foreign to us; we always infer the existence of the influence and observe its characteristics but never attain knowledge of the nature of the force/cause. God is the higher/first and absolute causal influence for everything in existence including the natural laws itself. Natural laws are contingent entities not a brute fact.

The first reaction of a domino effect/chain reaction is not another domino. The first cause is not an effect. The first cause is not subject to causation or any influence of any kind. The first cause is not relative. the first cause is absolute. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

You are grasping at straws now. When your sources say that gradualism is virtually nonexistent then they are admitting that it does exist at leas to some extent. I have given examples to you. There are places where we do not expect to see it at all so a lack of gradualism in the fossil record is not a problem.

You lost this argument.

First, we agreed on the sources and the assertion that gradualism is virtually nonexistent. Let's put that behind.

Second, when you say, “they are admitting that it does exist at least to some extent”, you are essentially grasping at straws because exceptions (subject to interpretations) never constitute a rule. Relative frequency of evidence is what supports gradualism or refute it, not merely some examples. Do you understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archaeopteryx is no longer the first bird and Archaeoraptor is a forgery.

Archaeopteryx:

July 2011, an article published by nature was titled, “Archaeopteryx no longer first bird”

The article said, “Mounting evidence shows famous fossil more closely related to Velociraptor.... Analysis of fossil traits suggests that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature

Archaeoraptor:

March 2001, an article published by nature was titled, “The Archaeoraptor forgery”.

The article said, “Archaeoraptor was revealed to be a forgery in which bones of a primitive bird and a non-flying dromaeosaurid dinosaur had been combined”.

The Archaeoraptor forgery | Nature

Wiki wrote, “Further scientific study showed it to be a forgery constructed from rearranged pieces of real fossils from different species.”

Archaeoraptor - Wikipedia

LOL!!! Oh my, I never said that it was the first bird. It was the first clear transitional fossil that was found. That never means that it was the first. You are arguing at a ninth grade level at best here.. And losing.

And archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor. Now you have sunk to a sixth grade level of debating and losing. Yes, Archaeoraptor was a fraud. But guess what? It was built from two separate fossil species. One of the them was . . . buckle your seat belts boyo a important discovery of its own. It was a four winged, (both front and back legs had flight feathers) feathered dinosaur called mircroraptor. The link that you provide told you that. When you link an article you should read it. If you do not understand it ask us. There is no sahme in doing so. There is shame when the article that you link refutes your claim:

Microraptor - Wikipedia

To summarize, I clamed that Darwin had his theory confirmed because a clear transitional fossil, archaeopteryx, was found during his lifetime. I never made the foolish claim that the fossil record showed gradualism. That is not needed. It is not expected. Only someone that has zero understanding would think that it was necessary. What we find are endless transitional fossils and all of them confirm the theory of evolution.

Second you brought up archaeoraptor, not me. it is not archaeopteryx. I know that the idiot Kent Hovind either lies or shows that he is an idiot because he claims that archaeopteryx was a fake. That was never shown to be the case. That was not shown to be the case for the first one, or the second one, or the third one . . . So far 12 different specimens of archaeopteryx have been found. It is not a fake. I don't know what makes old Kent think that those are fake fossils. Maybe because even he can see that it is a transitional fossil.

By the way, just in case you did not know: Transitional does not mean ancestral. If you want to discuss that I am fine with helping you understand. Here is a little light reading for you:

Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, my beliefs have nothing to do with the ToE being true or false. I never used my beliefs as a refutation of the ToE, did I?

Second, you fail to understand a simple logic. Science functions within a specific system with defined characteristics/laws, beyond the initiation point of that system, science doesn’t function. Science has jurisdictions/domain. God as the absolute first cause is external to that domain; you cannot get God to your lab to do experimentation. God is not a component nor confined within the laws of that system. Our system/realm is confined within spacetime, God is not confined within spacetime. The limitations of time/space (and all natural laws for that matter) don’t apply to God. You’re seeking the wrong kind of evidence that don’t apply; you’re trying to utilize the wrong tools in the wrong domain.

A beginning is a change, a change is a probability, a probability is a contingent being/entity. God is neither a probability nor a contingent being. God is the absolute existence that must logically exist to give rise to all relative probabilities.

You can't experiment on God. God is not an object that can be contained in a space or reflect light that you may see. It doesn’t work this way. You may refer to the posts below.

See # 1029
Darwin's Illusion | Page 52 | Religious Forums

See # 1851
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1854
Darwin's Illusion | Page 93 | Religious Forums

See #1861
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums



Again, science may observe an existing system and provide answers from within a system but can never address the initiation of the system. Science can neither explain the beginning of the universe 14 billion years ago nor the beginning of life. You think you know or may eventually attain the knowledge, but you really don’t and will not, simply because it's beyond the scientific method of observation/experimentation, meaning beyond the jurisdictions/domain of science.

But logic in addition to observed manifestations from within the system can shed light on the logical need for the (absolute) causal influence and the attributes of that influence. Yet the nature of the influence can never be known. Neither the nature of God nor the intrinsic nature of any natural force can be known. This very concept is not foreign to us; we always infer the existence of the influence and observe its characteristics but never attain knowledge of the nature of the force/cause. God is the higher/first and absolute causal influence for everything in existence including the natural laws itself. Natural laws are contingent entities not a brute fact.

The first reaction of a domino effect/chain reaction is not another domino. The first cause is not an effect. The first cause is not subject to causation or any influence of any kind. The first cause is not relative. the first cause is absolute. Do you understand?

You do not understand science. At all. You are the last one to lecture on what is or what is not science. Once again, if you want to go over the basics of science I am more than happy to do so with you.

Now as to "experimenting on God" That was not what I asked of you. What we can do experiments on are claims that are found in the Bible. The Bible is not God. It is a book. It is a book written by men. Now you believe that it was inspired by God. I do not believe that. Testing the Bible is not "testing God". Testing your personal beliefs is not "testing God'.

And logic is another area where your reasoning does not hold up. Let's go over the basics of science first. We can get to logic later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, we agreed on the sources and the assertion that gradualism is virtually nonexistent. Let's put that behind.

Second, when you say, “they are admitting that it does exist at least to some extent”, you are essentially grasping at straws because exceptions (subject to interpretations) never constitute a rule. Relative frequency of evidence is what supports gradualism or refute it, not merely some examples. Do you understand?

No, you first have to realize that a lack of gradualism in land fossils, it is found in quite a few different examples of sea life, is not evidence against evolution. Do you understand that? I can explain why. Fossilization is a very rare process. Fossilization of land animals is even more rare. The majority of species probably do not leave on fossil behind. If a species lives in a damp moist environment the odds are rather large that it will not be found in the record. It would take a catastrophic even to preserve one since a natural death would result in it either being consumed or naturally decaying away to nothing. That is why many land fossils are associated with "fossil graveyards" Areas where there was a chance of a flashflood or other such event that could take animals by surprise.

At any rare for various reasons land fossils are not to be expected to be gradual. Bringing that up is a worthless argument since both sides predict that there will not be any gradualism of land fossils. Do you understand this?

And why do you only talk about fossils when it comers to evolution? Talk to a biologist. They can explain to you why the fossil evidence is sufficient on its own we have far stronger evidence than that of evolution. We could not have one fossil and we would still know that the stories in Genesis are myths.

 

[LIIA]

Creationists never cease to amaze me.


Yet when those exact same scientists "make declarations" that you don't like, you just wave them away without thought (and then bizarrely say "I'm not cherry-picking").

For example, you quoted S.J. Gould on gradualism and presented his "declarations" as the final authoritative word. Yet the same S.J. Gould also said:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."​

Huh. Is S.J. Gould still an expert of such high regard that everyone here must heed his "declarations"? Somehow I'm guessing creationists will say no.

I've often wondered if this is what religion does to people, or if some folks were already like this and just naturally gravitated to religion. Either way, it's fascinating to behold.

I totally agree with him when he said, “Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." yes, the world's data/observations do not go away even if a theory interpreting them is disproved.

But I totally disagree with him when he said, “And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other”. This is exactly the problem. He is holding a false axiom that he insists on it regardless of any facts. If he does acknowledge the possibility that Darwin's proposed mechanism/theory is false, then the conclusions/predictions of the theory would be also false. You can’t deny a theory yet insist on its predictions. Relationships between fossils is only a matter of interpretation, it's not by any means a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I totally agree with him when he said, “Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." yes, the world's data/observations do not go away even if a theory interpreting them is disproved.

But I totally disagree with him when he said, “And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other”. This is exactly the problem. He is holding a false axiom that he insists on it regardless of any facts. If he does acknowledge the possibility that Darwin's proposed mechanism/theory is false, then the conclusions/predictions of the theory would be also false. You can’t deny a theory yet insist on its predictions. Relationships between fossils is only a matter of interpretation, it's not by any means a fact.

Sorry, but all of the facts still support evolution . Gould knew this.

 

[LIIA]

LOL!!! Oh my, I never said that it was the first bird.

Except that nature wrote “Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature

And archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor.

No, archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor and I didn’t say it is, did I?

The point here is that proponents of evolution such as yourself, typically justify their position by relying on either a false interpretation or a forgery, did you get it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that nature wrote “Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all.”

Archaeopteryx no longer first bird | Nature



No, archaeopteryx is not archaeoraptor and I didn’t say it is, did I?

The point here is that proponents of evolution such as yourself, typically justify their position by relying on either a false interpretation or a forgery, did you get it?

LMAOA! It does not need to be a bird to be transitional. Why didn't you admit to not understanding the concept?

A transitional species has the traits of both an older species and a more modern one. Archaeopteryx has those. Do you need a list?

 

[LIIA]

Sorry, but all of the facts still support evolution . Gould knew this.

You wish, in that respect, Gould didn’t know, it was not by any means a fact; it was a false axiom that he chose to hold. Facts/observations of the real world stay as facts but the theory interpreting them is merely a perception, a relative mental process subject to change not a fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

I totally agree with him when he said, “Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." yes, the world's data/observations do not go away even if a theory interpreting them is disproved.

Right, because that has no direct implications to your religious beliefs.

But I totally disagree with him when he said, “And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other”.

Right, because that directly conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Thus you are doing exactly what I described....cherry picking from your own experts (based on how their "declarations" mesh with your religious beliefs).

He is holding a false axiom that he insists on it regardless of any facts.

LOL...all you've done here is clearly show you didn't even bother to read what he wrote.

If he does acknowledge the possibility that Darwin's proposed mechanism/theory is false, then the conclusions/predictions of the theory would be also false. You can’t deny a theory yet insist on its predictions.

And now here you're showing that you don't understand the very topic you're attempting to debate. Remember, when Gould says "Darwin's mechanism", he's specifically talking about things like anagenic speciation.

IOW, when he says it didn't happen by Darwin's mechanism, he's not saying it didn't happen via evolution, he's saying it happened via a different set of evolutionary mechanisms than what are considered "Darwinism".

Now the true test....are you able to not only understand that, but also incorporate it into your thinking and arguments? We'll see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You wish, in that respect, Gould didn’t know, it was not by any means a fact; it was a false axiom that he chose to hold. Facts/observations of the real world stay as facts but the theory interpreting them is merely a perception, a relative mental process subject to change not a fact.

That is a claim that you cannot support. In fact so far that is a claim where you have been repeatedly refuted.