JV-12:

Just a reminder to you --- this isn’t about JV-12 doubting your claims. This is about scientists and other professional experts on evolution highly doubting and challenging the claims. Ok? They put out papers on it and explain why they highly, highly doubt the theory. Basically because the evidence is spurious or in most cases, non-existent. And note this --- some of them are agnostics, no believers in any faith, no agenda, just smart enough to be open and honest on what they are looking at. So do not fool yourself into thinking if you can pull one over on me that you have done your job.

When you state your claim without evidence I apply it to you alone. When you provide evidence, we can analyze and discuss it. Thus far you have failed to do so -- simple.

And the reason I have lost total interest in JGC’s addendums is because there are still about a dozen white elephants in the room that make it difficult for me to care about anything else. Like I once said, the most revered evolution scientist in the world (in some ways of looking at it) Gould did not buy into gradual change because the evidence was not there --- yet, you and yours insist we do and it be taught. That is rich.

Again, when you can back up the claims, we can discuss them. As for Gould, your revisionist history is false -- he was neither against evolution nor a creationist. As you can see here, his ideas are still being discussed, challenged and processed by different scientists. Perhaps I'm one of them, since I'm reading Dinosaur in a Haystack.

Early in his career, Gould and Niles Eldredge developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium, in which evolutionary change occurs relatively rapidly, as compared to longer periods of relative evolutionary stability.[12] According to Gould, punctuated equilibrium revised a key pillar "in the central logic of Darwinian theory."[3] Some evolutionary biologists have argued that while punctuated equilibrium was "of great interest to biology,"[13] it merely modified neo-Darwinism in a manner that was fully compatible with what had been known before. [14] Others however emphasized its theoretical novelty, and argued that evolutionary stasis had been "unexpected by most evolutionary biologists"[15] and "had a major impact on paleontology and evolutionary biology."[16] Some critics of the theory referred to punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks," a play on words Gould himself joked about.

This is rich. I guess he doesn't realize that they are both. He really needs a carp with a snout to buy into evolution. I guess an impossible standard also suits!

A carp with a snout is much easier for me to digest than an amoeba growing a liver and eyes and nervous systems and brains.

Ok, now it's a single-celled organism growing multi-cellular organs. Since either standard is impossible, it's a distinction without a difference. But you come by it spiritually, so it's understandable.

PS – the day you have evidence or a valid explanation for the weeping Madonna statue in Akita, Japan --- that is the day I begin to take certain skeptics seriously.

I've presented alternatives, but due to your personal definition of 'valid,' we'll have to agree to disagree there. That it stopped over twenty years ago doesn't help, either. Of course, if I were to use your standard, I could simply disregard it as you do evolution. I can see why such a practice would be appealing to you. I prefer to think and reason.