Evolutionists and creationists, which theory makes the most sense given the current gaps in fossil evidence:?

Question

1. Punctuated equilibrium: Which posits that evolution amongst sexually reproducing species takes place in rapid bursts, separated by long periods of stasis, in which little change occurs.

2. Phyletic gradualism: Which states that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

***Edit***
Memo to "I'm an Atheist" Definitions:

Evolutionist: a person who believes in organic evolution

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Scientist: A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

http://www.answers.com/topic/scientist

There is a huge difference between the two, and I made no referrence between them, so what are you talking about?

Answer 1

Punctuated equilibrium.

Climactic shifts and cataclysms (many of which left marks in the geologic record) are the driving force for the "rapid bursts". In times of stability, creatures grow into large populations that are well adapted to their niches and leave numerous fossils. The shift comes and populations dwindle as they are no longer well adapted. As a result, the descendants of the large stable population are fewer and undergo change rapidly as they adapt to the new circumstances.

Answer 2

Why are you asking this in the religion section?

It seems to me that religious belief (on faith) should not be the determinant of what is correct when applying the scientific method to understanding natural processes.

Creationism is simply a back up of a religious idea (young earth, instant creation of all species) and watered-down criticisms of evolution. Being such, creationism has no validity as either science or a representation of reality.

The finer points of evolution may be debated among biologists, but the theory of evolution itself is not under attack from a scientific standpoint. To throw out evolution over a small number of unknowns is comparable to the following scenario:

Your doctor informs a woman that her body may not respond the same way to heart medication that a man's body would. Some doctors speculate that it has something to do with hormones or environment, but they are not yet certain of the cause.

Creationism would be the equivalent of throwing out any information on the cardiovascular system, heart valves, arteries, or study of cholesterol, followed by the suggestion that the heart is too complex to be seen as the product of natural processes alone, as opposed to god. See the problem in this type of thinking?

Answer 3

Punctuated equilibrium, but I'm not a biologist so I really don't know enough about the fossil record for my opinion to be worth too much.

However, based on my understanding of the gaps in the fossil record and the ability of the theory of punctuated equilibria to explain those gaps, I think it is the better theory.

Edit: It's important to remember that evolution is seen as continuous in the theory of punctuated equilibrium, but occurring in rapid bursts.

Answer 4

I believe evolution is the evidence of creationism. We just view it from a different time frame than God. With that in mind, I'd say it's phyletic gradualism. I believe it was a continual process of gradual change until we got to the current mix of life on the planet.

Answer 5

The thing about Evolution is that the result is expressed genetically, but the influences on the genetics are many and varied. As has already been stated by others, environment and incidence factors come into play, thus both theories are relevant at different times and according to different circumstances.

Answer 6

Not being an expert in the field, I'll still pool my chips in with the Punctuated equilibrium. Spontaneous and/or induced genetic mutations and their impact on an organism can vary in rate from one species to another and can sometimes be seen in bunches. Lately we are told how various species of frog are being affected by increasing levels of solar radiation, apparently due to our depleting ozone layer. (apparently) That the species will adapt or be swept away will happen in a blink of the eye on the evolutionary/geological time scale and fossil evidence of this change will likely not be captured and seen by the archaeologists and geologists millions of years in the future.

Answer 7

Punctuated equilibrium makes most sense to me, as I've studied it the most in school, and only briefly come across the theory of phyletic gradualism. I also believe we are currently in a state of stasis.

Answer 8

The whole problem with my limited research and understanding of evolution is that no one is here to see how it all began. No one.

We can only observe things presently and try to work back to how it all began. We can observe the present and record results.

But looking at the fossil record is the biggest handicap of all.

Therefore in the end evolution is a good working theory. But it is inconclusive. I personally as a Christian know micro evolution is true. Macro evolution from my understanding of it works in theory only.
.

Answer 9

Evolution will ALWAYS make more sense than creation, period. There is plenty of evidence, despite the gaps, to prove evolution is true and factual. There is ZERO evidence for creation... the bible is not proof.

Answer 10

Despite the gaps evolution still has evidence. But no. 1. Bursts of changes are caused by drastic changes in climate and environment.