bill,- "nonsense"...."my, that looks pretty judgmental ! .."
see above, also, on neandertal.
as far as "jerky" is concerned, I think I have seen the term used by the authors, but it seems applicable anyway, as an alternative to gradualism.
"READ THIS !" 1....apart from the definition and example being slanted in favour of evolutionism , I fail to see why I am wrong to say that you were appealing to authority/numbers.
try slanting the definition and example in favour of creation science, and I hope you will get the point.
failing that, I will wait and see if it really is the " last time" that you "will say this" -grin-
"READ THIS" !    2....I SUPPOSE WE COULD ALL point to an article to argue a point with just a brief preface. maybe if I could work out clickys, I might do more too , but I hope that I would continue to substantiate, best I can, in my own words.
so, bill, if you would like to do likewise [with or without using the arguments in the link] we can continue the discussion.
but, in the mean time ,having read some of the link, I find no reason to trust evolutionary readings of radio carbon data. as I have said before, if they can misdate rocks of known age, why trust any date from their interpretations.