Goku: I don't know what your point is in bringing up Koonin's FUE, but notice that neither Koonin or Gould etc. are debating whether or not evolution happens, but the specific process and mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
It doesn't matter though. That's an implicit argumentum ad verecundiam. Really when you think about it, I could argue the following;
"We sat John was the killer. Now there are problems, the three witnesses said John was seen raping and killing the victim with his bare hands and no c*ndom, and they said he had muddy, wet boots. Now here is a fact, we have found no dna from John in the victim, nor have we found his finger prints anywhere in or around the crime scene, nor any boot prints, but despite all this you should realise I am not claiming that John didn't do the crime. "
Goku: Exactly how long it takes for the evolution of a given characteristic is something that is not well understood;
Which is a nice rhetorical way of saying that there is no evidence it is evolution, because you IMPLY that evolution is still true despite this. "How long it takes Goku to kill people is not understood.." (begging the question fallacy)
why do you repeat these fallacies and never learn you are doing so? I don't mind mistakes but repeating them is not a good sign.
How John got in and out of the building and committed the murder, is not well understood.
Given it's not, "well understood", how are we to understand that it ever happened, given if evolution did not happen the results would be the same.
The whole, "we can outline 400 problems with evolution....but none of us question evolution, that should be understood!" argument, is an example of contradictory reasoning where people are basically arguing that they are not saying what they are saying.
If Gould still accepts evolution, why did he argue there wasn't any intermediates? If he is not saying what he is saying, then why would he come up with punctuated equilibrium if he has no problem with those intermediates missing?
If they haven't found the mechanism by now then bloody hell what about the conclusion that there aren't any because macro evolution is false? Shouldn't that be an objective scientific, logical possibility? How long does it have to point that way before a person gives up the hunt? If I search your whole house for an elephant and I don't find it should I reason that we don't quite understand how an elephant could fit in a drain pipe?
Goku: There seems to be enough transitonal fossils (and other evidence) that scientists overall have conclude evolution is a reality despite uncertainty in what the exact mechanisms and processes are.
And logically that is the worst reasoning evolutionist use. That evolutionists are certain evolution happened from the "evidence", (slothful induction, a tiny fraction of transitionals which can be explained away easily), but they are uncertain as to the exact mechanisms and processes. "we're certain it happend, but not certain how."
Ermm....I'm certain Goku murdered someone, but I am not certain how, all I know is there is some tenuous evidence that suggests he did. Then am I certain?
I am certain you murdered, right? Okay, what is that predicated on if we don't know how you did it? For example if there were no forced locks, and there is evidence suggesting you were elsewhere at the time? Explain how someone can be certain X happened if they don't know it happened, for me.
How can I be certain someone was murdered if we don't know how they were murdered? You are effectively saying that because of effect/evidence 'P', we know the cause was, 'X' but really evolution if it did happen, happened in history meaning you can't know the cause of 'P'. You can only reason that 'P' might follow, to say therefore, "certainly evolution" is to argue affirmation of the consequent. Basically then, even though you don't claim evolution is proven, it seems you and Gould treat it like it is proven. This is a contradiction, either it is proven or it is not. A tally of inductive evidence doesn't give proof, especially when 99.99% of the expected evidence is missing.
So then how are they "certain" of evolution? What is the magic trick? You always leave us guessing what the magic ingredient is. Why don't you show it for once Goku? Explain why someone can be certain evolution is true based on the science when scientific rules say you can't be certain.
Essentially you are tacitly admitting that you have a non-scientific attitude, despite all of your innocent-by-association arguments in support of the science-epithet.
I assume you wouldn't argue that if evolution did not happen that we would expect to see evolutionary mechanisms? I hope you agree we would see none if it did not happen which would be a strong indication that evolution is believed, and inferred, unsoundly; that essentially it is believed rather than factual.
You are asking me to shut down my brain. "Mike, the scientists believe they have enough."
Wow - is that it, and I just have to trust that they are certain which means they believe it proven? The only way to be certain is if you have proof, and you always argue science doesn't deal in it.
Are you certain evolution happened? If you are it will follow you know how. (reductio ad absurdum)
You don't know how, yet argue you are certain it did.
Let me tell you a secret Goku - you aren't certain evolution happened. And I know that when you read my words telling you you are not certain, deep down on the inside of you, you will be nodding.