Laurie Appleton lies:

[...]

LA> The gradualists argue that "jumps" contradict
LA> what is known about genetics, whereas the punctuationists
LA> argue that phyletic gradualism is so complely falsified by
LA> the fossil record that it must be wrong!

This is rampant misrepresentation by Laurie. The sort of "jumps" needed for PE are the sort of jumps found in speciating populations today, which cannot "contradict what is known about genetics", since that is part of what we know about genetics. PG is not considered "wrong" by those advancing PE. See the validation of Ozawa's 1975 study of forams as documenting a transitional sequence in the PG mode by Gould and Eldredge in their 1977 paper in Paleobiology. It seems to me that I've pointed out this paper several times to Laurie before, but he apparently still hasn't managed to locate and read it. Laurie doesn't seem to have any aversions to spouting off assertions just because he doesn't know anything about the topic, though.

LA> Creationists, of course, are happy to agree with BOTH
LA> sides. Evolution could not happen by gradualism and it could
LA> not have happened by punctuations either and so Creation
LA> seems to be the only valid scientific option!

Except that YEC is neither valid nor scientific, so it doesn't qualify as an option.

The PE/PG debate is not over whether either of them happen. They both are acknowledged to happen by those who know the evidence. What is at issue is which of them describes the *mode* of evolution, that is, which one accounts for most of the data. Evolution can and has happened in both PE and PG fashion. A lot more paleontology is needed to resolve which one happens most often. The early indications that I've seen favor PE.

Wesley

Go Back