Zachriel says that “Darwin held that evolution would be frequently characterized by stasis.” In support of this piece of blithering idiocy he quotes the following from Origin (4th ed):
the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.
I responded by placing Zach’s quote in context. This is what Darwin actually said:
On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? Although geological research has undoubtedly revealed the former existence of many links, bringing numerous forms of life much closer together, it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it. Why, again, do whole groups of allied species appear, though this appearance is often false, to have come in suddenly on the successive geological stages? I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe. The number of specimens in all our museums is absolutely as nothing compared with the countless generations of countless species which have certainly existed . . .Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retained the same form
We can summarize what Darwin said in 3 steps:
Step 1: What Darwin’s Theory Predicts
Darwin says that if his theory is correct there would have been an “extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species.”
Further down he says his theory REQUIRES “infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species.”
In summary, Darwin predicted “rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time” just as Eldredge and Tatterall later said. See Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution
Earth to Zach. Darwin held that evolution would be characterized generally by an “infinitude of connecting links,” and “infinitely many fine gradations.” He most certainly did not say that the evolution would be characterized by stasis. He said just exactly the opposite. FAIL.
Step 2: Darwin’s Problem.
Darwin candidly admitted that the fossil record does not reveal that “infinitude of connecting links” his theory predicts:
Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? . . .it does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory, and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it
Step 3: Darwin Tries to Explain His Problem Away
After admitting his problem with the fossil record, Darwin immediately went on to try to explain the problem away. And Zach’s little snippet comes from one of the arguments he makes about why the fossil record is incomplete at best and sometimes even deceptive, because it does not reveal what his theory – his word – “requires.” With respect to bit clipped by Zach, Darwin says that the record might give a false impression of general stasis, not that his theory actually predicts general stasis. This false impression is created, Darwin says, because some species that happened to leave fossils behind became extinct without leaving descendants. Why does this leave a false impression? Because an individual species that is not representative of the process of evolution as a whole as predicted by Darwin, by the sheer happenstance, became the one that left a fossil record.
In summary, Zach has used Darwin’s claim that certain fossils leave a FALSE impression of stasis to support Zach’s claim that Darwin actually predicted stasis generally. FAIL
Zach is wrong and you don’t have to be an ID advocate to know it. Eminent, world famous DARWINISTS disagree with Zach:
Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.
Niles Eldredge, Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution
You might think that would settle the matter. But it did not. After I laid all of this out Zach responded:
No. Darwin explains why the fossil record won’t encapsulate every transition. First, because fossilization is necessarily incomplete; second, because stasis is more typical than change, so change will be less likely to be preserved; and third, because new species will often form in small, isolated populations, and are therefore unlikely to leave fossils . . . Gould and Eldredge were often criticized for overstatement.
Good grief Zach do you have no shame? Do you seriously believe you can get away with saying that Darwin believed stasis is more typical than change and not his own words when he wrote “infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species [are] required on the theory.”
You have descended into insane denial.
Which brings up an age old question. If the evidence for modern evolutionary theory is so overwhelming, why do its advocates continue to lie and lie and lie when they argue for it? If the truth were on their side one would think they would stick to it. Or maybe the truth isn’t on their side and that is why Zach feels like he has to tell whoppers. The problem is that while Zach is certainly a liar, he is not a very good one, because his lies, like this one, are so easily exposed.*
“What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding it [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.” Lewis, C.S., Private letter (1951) to Captain Bernard Acworth
*Maybe Zach is really a YEC fundamentalist agent provocateur shilling as a Darwinist? If that is the case Zach, dial it back. You are laying it on too thick, to the point where your act is no longer believable.