Punctuated Equilibrium Does What?

 Darwinian evolutionists have done many acrobatic hoops and jumps to try to prove that evolution is true.  One such attempt is Punctuated Equilibrium, as proposed by two American scientists, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the early 1970s.  Punctuated Equilibrium is defined as: "the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change."

Now, a simple question:  Does this definition not argue against Darwinian evolution?  According to Darwinian evolution "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics."  So, I'm confused; is evolution change over time or a sudden explosion? According to proponents of Punctuated Equilibrium it's not change over time but a sudden happening.  If you Google for the proof of Punctuated Equilibrium you will see that they say that scientists have found proof of it in the genetic sequence.  But, sorry, I don't get it. Where is the beef?  Show me the transitional forms.  I've yet to see any of them.  Click here for a short video of an explanation of Punctuated Equilibrium.  The skeptic may say, you don't know what you're talking about; you're not a scientist.  Well, yes, I'm not, but show me the transitional forms.  I don't see them. Scientific mumbo jumbo will not do.  Don't tell me you see it in the genetic code; show me the transitional forms.

Supporters of Punctuated Equilibrium may have the Cambrian Explosion in mind.  It is true that the fossils in the Cambrian appeared fully formed; no transitional forms, but how does this lead you to Punctuated Equilibrium?  Here is a fine article by Casey Luskin explaining this.  Click here to read it.

The Problem With Darwinian Evolution

 You have to have faith to believe in Darwinian evolution.  Lots of faith.  What is their evidence for change over time?  Does the Fossil Record back them up?  Does science back them up? Do they allow other points of view?  Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics back their position of gain of function over time?

I am not a scientist.  I have been interested in this subject since reading the classic Darwin work, Origin of Species in my second year of college.  I was impressed by Darwin's work but I kept scratching my head as to how he can jump to the conclusions he did.  How did a minuscule increase or decrease in the Finch beak indicate a change in transitional animal forms?  How did the Fossil Record lead him to believe in change over time when he could not find such a record?  Since those early years I've read extensively on this subject.  I have yet to see proof that Darwinian evolution is true.  I agree that Darwin was a brilliant scientist.  Darwin was up front about his scientific views. He stated that he did not have proof of his theory; he believed that the Fossil Record would eventually prove him right.  163 years later, the Fossil Record is worse than at his time.  Darwin stated in the Origin of Species:  

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

To this day no transitional forms have been found.  His theory has broken down.  The Fossil Record as shown in the Cambrian explosion proves him wrong.  For years I had serious doubts about Darwinian Evolution, then one day I heard an interview with the author of Darwin on Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson.  Johnson verified every doubt I had.  Here is a short video of Johnson on the problem with Darwinian evolution.  Phillip Johnson died a few years ago.

Fossil Record:  The Cambrian Explosion shows all the animal forms appeared fully formed.  So, they have a hell of a time trying to use the Cambrian Explosion to prove their point.  Click here for a short video clip of Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian Explosion.  So, what do they use?  Lots of fancy double talk and no scientific proof, in my view. Cell biologist Jonathan Wells, in his book Icons of Evolution, list 12 Darwinian icons that Darwinists use to "prove" evolution, such as The Miller-Urey Experiment, Haeckel's Embryo's, Archaeopteryx, and Peppered Moths, all have proven to be either fakes or have been debunked.   I have a strong suspicion that what drives them is their fervent atheism, such as the well known British Darwinist, Richard Hawkins, a proud atheist.  In his popular book, The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins states:  "Darwin made it possible to be a fulfilled atheist." Don't know if this is true but I suspect that it has a lot to do with it.  Dawkins says that design is an illusion basically; it looks like design but it's not.  So, where is the beef?  He presents no evidence for his position; just an arbitrary assertion.  You just have to have faith in Dawkins.

Does science back up Darwinism?  I have yet to see it.  Again, you must have faith. 

Do they allow different points of view?  Just try to speak at any college about Intelligent Design or say anything that challenges Darwinian evolution and see what happens.  Or, try to teach Intelligent Design; you will be fired on the spot, as was Washington state High School teacher Roger DeHart.  DeHart was not trying to reach Intelligent Design, he just wanted his students to look at both sides of the issue. So what are they afraid of? The truth perhaps?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics.  Does the second law support Darwinian evolution?  No, it's the opposite.  According to this law, energy goes from order to disorder, or what is called entropy, not the other way around like the Darwinist believe.  Just look at a human being.  What happens over time? Are you in a better physical shape at 90 years old as you were at 18?

Biologist Michael Behe, in his classic work, Darwin's Black Box, talks about "irreducible complexity." Unless all the parts are there, the mouse trap does not work.  This is totally the opposite of what Darwin proposes.  So, I'm still waiting for the evidence of Darwinian evolution.  James Perloff, in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, equates Darwinian evolution as having a 747 aircraft being assembled by a tornado in a junkyard.