When I first started debating creationists online they used to refuse any type of evolution whatsoever, and when the internet creationist warriors learned that populations do in fact change over time they had to address it. So they took the scientific term of "micro evolution" and came up with their own definition which basically expanded the definition to any evolutionary change up to the "kind" level which most professional creations say is around the "family" taxonomic rank. Other creationists thought that this type of language was too compromising, and so went one step further and replaced "micro evolution" with "adaptation", even though "adaptation" has a whole other definition in biology.
In biology micro evolution is often framed as "changes in allele frequency", and it doesn't denote whether the change is good or bad - as you probably know if a mutation is not neutral or nearly-neutral then the mutation is more likely to be harmful than beneficial. So, if someone has a harmful mutation this harmful mutation will be represented in the allele frequency of the population, and thus it is "micro evolution" by standard biology definitions, but would you also consider this an "adaptation" as I understand the relationship between standard biology terms and creationist terminology? If this is not adaptation then what do you call it, devolution?
Well that take is obviously what Gould was saying; I don't know how you went from "transitional forms.... are abundant between larger groups" to, "he freely admits that we DON'T observe MACRO "Evolution" in the fossil record". Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite.
I kind of agree evolutionary theory has this reverence about it, but I also think this reverence is more of a reaction to fundamentalist's a priori rejection of ToE and the (perceived) coupling of fundamentalism and pseudo-science. There are smart creationists out there, and some even have legitimate scientific credentials, but I think it is clear that the more you know about the subject the harder it is to continue believing in creationism. If you read Todd Wood's blog for example, perhaps the most qualified creationist to speak about evolution (YEC, PhD in biochem), he all but says evolution is sound science and that he rejects evolution irrespective of scientific facts/understanding in favor of his religious interpretation of the Bible.
I suspect most creationists with scientific backgrounds are so entrenched in creationism that their bias simply doesn't allow them to see the facts straight, but I suppose creationists would say the same thing about evolutionists.
"Unless I'm missing something Gould was saying the exact opposite."
Yes, you are missing something about Gould's quote.. Is was a response to this quote he made..
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace,"
Oh, funny you brought up Todd Wood..He made himself a poster boy for
the Oval Earther movement with a really stupid article.. Here is a letter I
wrote to him. I rightly called him out for his nonsensical article, He hasn't
written back.I also wrote a few emails to Ken Ham and asked him to explain
why he allowed Todd to post such deceptive foolish nonsense on his website..
I even made a few complaints about it on the AIG Facebook page..
I haven't heard back from anyone... Safe to say that you are barking up the
wrong tree if you think I am going to be impressed with something Todd Wood
wrote...LOL you can peddle that fish somewhere else (with all due respect)
Hi Todd, I have been studying the subject of "Evolution" for many years now and am confident that I know as much or more about the subject of origins than 99% of the humans on this planet.
When I saw your assertion in your article about "Gobs and Gobs of "evidence" for "Evolution" It really caught my attention to say the least, I would love for you to PLEASE give me a few examples of what this "Evidence" is, because up until now "Evolutionists have been hiding it from Creationists and telling us that we just dont understand how "evolution works" and need to "Trust Science"
Just to clarify, When you use the word "Evolution" in your context, one should assume that you are referring to UCA all flora and fauna and NOT merely variation and adaptation like moth colors, finch beaks, bacterial resistance, and dog variety, Correct? BTW the word "Micro" Evolution is a marketing ploy / Bait and Switch deception used to fool people that is "Evolution" WHEN IT IS NOT.
Just a reminder. Wishful Speculation, Hopeful Assumptions, Unverified Speculation, Myths, Legends, and Circular Reasoning should not be acceptable to Anyone when it comes to Evidence that must conform to the Scientific Method to be considered Empirical Science (Or do you not agree with that?)
BTW, I am also curious about the "amazing explanatory power" that "Evolution" has..
For example, Evolution can explain why we should expect "Evolution to Occur...
Instantly ("Hopeful Monsters" or "Saltation")
Rapidly. (Punctuated Equilibrium)
Slowly.. (decent with minuscule modifications over MOYs)
Never.... (400 Million Year Old Living Fossils)
Yup.... How very impressive is the "Amazing explanatory power of Evolution" Indeed..
HERE IS WHAT YOU WROTE FOR REFERENCE..
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true"