Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

Status
Not open for further replies.

ArtB

Newbie
Oct 19, 2013
120
9
New City, Rockland NY
✟7,813.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species that existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.

According to the Darwin’s theory on how evolution occurs, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. Very long lineages of descent with very gradual modification, producing innumerable generations of intermediate species, each diverting lineage undergoing the transformations of accumulating new organs and body plans that ancestors did not have, but very gradually over long periods of time.

If this were true, there had to be billions of such creatures that made up these evolutionary trends. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record, documenting the millions of the predicted gradual trends of morphological evolutionary transformations, also known as `phylogenies'. This is the one solid real science prediction of evolution, that we would be able to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true.

The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. It was suppose to provide and establish these innumerable phylogenies, but few could be found in his day, and these few were questionable. A contemporary of Darwin, a paleontologist, questioned Darwin's Theory by pointing that if Darwin's Theory be true, why do each successive layer of fossil beds merely have the same unchanged fossils of each type of animal or plant that are found at the different layers.

Darwin was well aware of this, and in his book, Charles Darwin attempts to explain this `unpleasant' fact away by appealing to the imperfection of the fossil record in his day. Darwin gambled the validity of his theory on his prediction that future generations of paleontologists will discover the phylogenies. For the next 100 and so years after Darwin, Paleontologists (and others) traveled the world hoping to make a name for theirselves by finding these phylogenies that Darwin's Theory predicts, must exist.

They were never found in the geological record. They do not exist. Not even one.

Testimonies to this fact include:

Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (From a 1953 Science Journal, as quoted in Arthur C Constance book: `The Earth Before Man', part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984):

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo- biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."

Confirming this view in 1960, Evolutionary paleontologist Neville George stated: "There is no reason to apologize any longer for the poverty of the Fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich."

Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467. Writes:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides as a means of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

Evolutionist Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of London, writes:
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological record that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."

Right after the pounding of Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution presented by mathematicians at the 1966 Wistar Symposium that was held in Philadelphia and was titled, 'Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution'. A young Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge published:

"Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains our persistent bugbear. ... it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist arguments: "For evolution to be true, there had to be thousands, millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain." (Anon., 1967- from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet).

Thus, not only in Darwin's day, but throughout the Twentieth century the creationists were rightly rejecting Darwin's theory on this basis, as Gould and Eldredge pointed out.

By the 1970's there came a big rumble against the two Darwinian Theories of evolution emanating from the Field of Paleontology, led by the Evolutionary Paleontologists: Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and Colin Patterson. Gould and Eldredge believed they were saving The General Theory of Evolution, by casting out Darwin Theory, and the Neo-Darwinian Theory called `The Modern Synthesis'.

Gould and Eldredge believed that their new theory for the mechanism of evolution (Punctuated Equilibrium) would replace the false Darwinian Paradigm and thereby preserve the Academic credibility of the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. Common Ancestry). P.E. basically states that evolution occurs in small populations and in too short a time period, and therefore is not recorded in the fossil record. This did not at all sit well with the evolutionary biologists (e.g. Dobzhansky, Mayr, Maynard Smith, Dawkins etc.)

Perhaps unwittingly, in one of his earlier books, Ernst Mayr laid the groundwork for G&E's Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Mayr went against the Modern Synthesis in proposing that rapid speciation occurred in geographical isolated areas and that this may account for the abrupt appearance of species and the lack of evidence of transition found in the fossil record. However, according to Paleontologist Steven Stanley: "Little attention was paid to the punctuational elements of his work until the 1970's. This paradox was partly the result of the diffuse, but ever present, counter pressure supplied by the field of genetics, in which Mayr was not a specialist. This gradualistic march of the geneticist had gathered
too much momentum to be diverted by peripheral activities."
(Steven Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable", 1981, p.78).

Now, back to Darwin's prediction:

Gould (Natural History, May 1977) writes of Darwin's gradualism:
"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. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic records, will rightly reject my whole theory."

"We have all heard the traditional response so often that it has become imprinted as a catechism that brooks no analysis: the fossil record is extremely imperfect. ... This traditional approach to morphological breaks merely underscores what Feyerabend meant ... in comparing theories to party lines, for it renders the picture of phyletic gradualism virtually unfalsifiable." (G&E, 1972).

Gould & Eldredge, explaining PE's departure from the Modern
Synthesis:
"To Darwin... speciation entailed the same expectation as phyletic evolution: a long and insensibly graded chain of intermediate forms. Our present texts have not abandoned this view, although modern biology has." (G&E, 1972).

By 1981 The Biologists and powers that be in Academia were very upset with the `Punctuation scientists' and forced them to tone down their theory, particularly because it is a theory not based on observing evolution in action, but rather, it was based on the inability to see evolution in action in the geological fossil record. They were forced to say their theory of PE was complementary to the Modern Synthesis (even though Gould and Eldredge already called the Modern Synthesis `dead'). They were also coerced into putting out ad hominem attacks on creationary scientists, who used the punctuationists admissions as confirmation of what they had been saying all along.

Return of: THE MYTH OF THE INCOMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD! 1991.

One evolutionist that recently argued forcibly for the incompleteness of the fossil record is geologist Tjeered H. van Andel (Nature, 294; 1991,397-398; Consider the Incompleteness of the Fossil Record). Van Andel points out that rates at which sediment is deposited in the Gulf of Mexico is well known. He applies this rate to the Wyoming marine strata that was once submerged under water similar to the Gulf of Mexico. He concludes that the Wyoming strata could have been deposited in 100,000 years using uniformitarian assumptions and the known rate of deposition from the Gulf of Mexico. He then points out that paleontologists have that strata pegged at occurring over 6 million years. Tjeered H. van Andel, like the good evolutionists he is, ignores the possibility that the strata in question most likely had been deposited over a period that could be not more than 100,000 years. Instead, he keeps the evolutionary timetable of the paleontologists and concludes that 5.9 million years of deposition is missing from the geological record and that "key elements of the evolutionary record may be forever out of reach."

Next, Van Andel tackles the question: Shouldn't the lack or erosion forces present on land continental land masses be absent at the sea bottom result in a more complete record at the sea bottom sediments?

Using the same logic as above, he points to the South Atlantic and concludes that of the 125 million years of sediment deposition, half of it is missing.


Mr. Van Andel, is it possible, even most probable, that the missing sediments are missing because the evolutionary assumptions of some evolutionary biologists and geologists are wrong and that the alleged missing sediments and the associated presumed evolutionary time never existed in the first place. Of course evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, they know evolution is a fact and, therefore the sacred evolutionary timetable must be upheld and the sediments must have existed but are now missing.

This was similar to Paleontologist J. Wyatt Durham ("The Incompleteness of our Knowledge of the Fossil Record"; Journal of Paleontology, 41: 599-565, 1967) Wherein he points out that according to evolutionary theory, 4.1 million fossilizable marine species have existed since the Cambrian and only 93,000 have been discovered. Like Van Andel, Durham argument for the incompleteness relies solely on the assumption that evolution is a fact and this many are needed to fill the evolutionary gaps. His evolutionist assumptions led him to conclude that only one out of every 100 fossil species of Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts are being found. The situation has worsened since he wrote this, fossils of every Phylum are found within a 10 million year span of the Cambrian ERA.

Problems With The Evolutionary Time Table:

Getting back to the Wyoming Strata. Kvale, Mickelson et. al. have discovered mega track dinosaur sites (Palois, 16:233-254, 2001). Previously, Dinosaur tracks were rare in Wyoming and it was considered to be mostly marine prior to this find. In fact, the tracks were found in Carbonate units that were believed to be totally marine. This caused the evolutionists to conveniently 'reinterpret' the paleoenvironment of the sedimentary rock deposits. Evolutionists now see "... previously unrecognized intertidal to supratidal carbonate units once thought to be totally marine in origin." Also, since Van Andel 1987 paper, a shoreline was invented to account for the presence of dinosaurs. [This find of buried land Dinosaurs in what scientists previously observed to be marine deposits may well be a strong evidence for Noah's flood, but evolutionists, the media, and academia will never let that fly.]

Now it gets much worse for the evolutionists, the Dinosaur tracks appear in different strata, using the established paleontologists time scale, the lower strata tracks and the upper level tracks are separated by over 3 million years. Furthermore the tracks are all similar (tridactyl, small to medium size of bipedal dinosaurs), no other tracks of other types of dinosaurs were found. All the upper layer tracks are headed in a southerly direction and fossilized egg sites and baby dinos have been found just to the north. Absent in the mega tracks are any juvenile or baby forms of tracks. The tracks are made in flood sediments. As a whole, the 3 million years for these sediment layers on the paleontological chart seems to have been laid in days by bipedal, tridactyl dinosaurs fleeing a catastrophic flood.

The lower strata tracks laid at the beginning of a great flood that quickly left many strata of sediments, followed by the water receding and the adult dinosaurs fleeing south abandoning their young and eggs
as the next wave of flooding rapidly covered and preserved the second set of tracks at the allegedly presumed 3 million year younger higher strata. This scenario is further evidenced by a wet substrate, swim tracks in the lower strata, and ripple marks formed at the same time as the tracks. These events had to occur rapidly in order to cover up and preserve the large quantities of tracks. These strata may have been formed in a day, or perhaps weeks, but not the 3 million years the evolutionists assign to it.

The answer to the question, is the fossil record vastly incomplete? : Is NO!!!

The real problem is that the fossil record is not at all as Darwin and Neo Darwinists predict it ought to be. It looks like Creation, not Evolution. The old argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against Evolution is the claim; the fossil record is very incomplete. The fossil is not very incomplete, it simply looks like special Creation, created by a very capable and intelligent being or beings. Secular Humanists whom run our education systems and control our science programs, simply refuse to give up their unsupported ideology of Secular Humanism, of which Evolution is the necessary component of the atheists creation myth.

The new argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against evolution is the claim by Gould/Eldredge that Evolution occurs in spurts and happens to occur too rapidly to be preserved by the fossil record (i.e. Punctuated Equilibria. Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, Patterson and many other paleontologists and geologists recognized that the fossil record looks very unlike Evolution and that this is not at all due to a poor incomplete fossil record, that the true fossil record is a tale of the abrupt appearance of the species followed by stasis for their duration in the fossil record.

Thus they invented the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria to save Evolution as a materialistic explanation of life on Earth. They were forced to tone down their claim when it became apparent that a lack of evidence is not evidence for a theory. In any case P.E. put the paleontologists and geologists at odds with the biologists who had been suppressing the true fossil record with their claims that the record was very imperfect and incomplete.

The correct observation, derived from an extensive and exhaustive review of the fossil record, is that there are no known transitional series clearly linking any of the natural groups of animals or plants above the species level.

Today leading evolutionary scientists, though not talked about publicly, know that the gaps in the fossil record are huge, and not a question of filling in a few minor speciation events .

Further, the trend has been that the more fossils found, the more fossils species discovered, the clearer the gaps and the inconsistencies become. This is contrary to the prevailing rumor that new fossil finds are closing the gaps in the fossil record. Rather, fossil finds are clarifying the gaps in the fossil record.

For example, with a few fossils, evolutionists were able to fill the gaps with their imagination. Evolutionist Niles Eldredge once wrote of what appeared to be a significant transition in lineage. The fossil record had recorded a certain trilobite species as lasting for millions of years and then becoming extinct, only to be replaced in higher strata by a similar, but significantly different, trilobite species of the same family. Is this Evolution in action? Well not quite. Professor Eldredge pointed out that - As more fossils were found, these two species turned out to be contemporaries at their point of origin in the geological strata.

Though it is true that rocks containing fossils do erode and some fossils end up in private collections, these are lame excuses for explaining away why the fossil record has not provided any of the millions of transitional series that must have existed if large scale Evolution truly occurred.

The truth of the matter is that the Fossil record is abundantly rich. Over a quarter billion fossils have been catalogued of over 300,000 species. The gaps can no longer be rationalized away with appeals to the imperfection of the fossil record.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return of the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)

"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 on their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' Natural History, 1979. Paleontologists Steven Stanley (1979) points out:
"In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of meaningful analysis at the level of the species."

In the same book ('Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process', p.38), Professor Steven Stanley points out: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition."

Dr. Steven Stanley repeats this fact in his 1981 book "The New Evolutionary Time Table:

"Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored. This strange circumstance constitutes a remarkable chapter in the history of science, and one that gives students of the fossil record cause for concern,."

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, stated in a lecture at his Museum in 1979:
"Darwin's' theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately this is not strictly true. ... The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn't look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the 'Origin of the Species' to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. ... Darwin's general
solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say the fossil record was a very incomplete one. ... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species, but the situation has not changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky, and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - that what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated. ..."

Dr. Kenneth Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute of Zurich, ('Darwin's Three Mistakes' Geology, Vol. 14 1986) - Shows that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record cannot be blamed on the inadequacy of the Fossil record:

"We know that Lyell and Darwin were wrong on their insistence on the imperfection of the geologic record. ... The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary falls within magnetostratigraphic Chron C29R, which was is less than 500 years in duration (Kent, 1977). The boundary is recorded by precision stratigraphy, which has a resolution power to recognize events in thousands, if not hundreds, of years duration."

"Paleontology is now looking at what it actually finds in the fossil record. Not what it is told by that it supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - The Punctuated Equilibrium Pattern of Eldredge and Gould." Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, Vol 108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66)

And what they were definitely not finding were the evolutionary transistions, the phylogenies, predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments for the evolutionists. Evolutionists N. Macbeth and E. Saif give yet another example.

" A. The Commitment in Theory: Darwinian theory asserts the physical descent with modification has been universal, which means that every modern species is the latest link in a phylogeny. There must therefore have been hundreds of thousands of phylogenies, and it was Darwin's' expectation that these would be found. His followers, sharing his expectation, felt a duty to seek and find the phylogenies. ...

B. Another Miserable Failure: The expectations were in vain. In the 125 years since the Origin was published, nothing has been accomplished. No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of them has fallen into disrepute." Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.


The above, and other evidences that the Fossil records fails to support the Theory of Common Ancestry because it is a record abrupt appearance the species followed stasis (no change) and with all major transformations of Bauplanes (i.e. Body plans) undocumented.

Yet even more peculiar, the whole fossil record is backwards from what evolution Theories predicted. It supposed to start with a single species - first life, which evolves into a 2nd species, which evolves into genus, which evolves into a family. And family members spread out and evolve separately into new species, genus’s, and families - until new orders become distinguished, and the process continues with many major transitions occurring over very long periods of time, eventually causing all the different Phyla to evolve into existence.

But the fossil record truly starts with the Burgess explosion of life, immediately followed by the totally unconnected Cambrian Explosion of life, where all Phyla known today are found in a very short geologic span of less than 10 million years. All major body plans appear in a very short geologic time. It is impossible for them to have evolved in that time period. The only life observed before these explosions of life are four bacteria that go back billion years, plus one unrelated type whose name I can't remember at this time, totally different from the bacteria. These 5 are alive and well today, and completely unchanged.

Conclusion, the fossil record does not look at all like Evolution, but it does resemble special creation: i.e. sudden appearance of each Kind of creature followed by stasis (i.e. + no change) for each their duration in the fossil record.

ArtB, I will probably not, it is a strain to do this.

My greetings and best wishes to he who goes by the name Loudmouth."
 
Last edited:

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
*cough*

Hominids

hominids2_small.jpg


Tiktaalik

pic21.jpg
 
Upvote 0

ArtB

Newbie
Oct 19, 2013
120
9
New City, Rockland NY
✟7,813.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The following are quotations from scientists who understand the 2nd law as derivative of the law of increasing probability, and with full application to open systems as well as isolated.
Physicist Harold F Blum, “Perspectives in Evolution,” American Scientist, vol. 43 (October 1955), pp 595‑610. pp. 595-6

“A major consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that all real processes go toward a condition of greater probability. The probability function generally used in thermodynamics is entropy…. Thus orderliness is associated with low entropy; randomness with high entropy…. The second law of thermodynamics says that left to itself any isolated system will go toward greater entropy, which also means toward greater randomness and greater likelihood.”

Sommerfeld, Arnold, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. V (New York: Academic Press, 1956), p. 155.

upload_2015-7-24_23-13-29.png
(eq 10)

[where = entropy generated locally, s = entropy flux, e = mass density,
upload_2015-7-24_23-13-29.png
= time rate of entropy change.]

“Equation (10) together with the inequality  = can be regarded as the differential formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.”

Ross, John, “2nd Law of Thermodynamics,” Letter-to-the-Editor, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58 (July 7, 1980), p. 40. Ross was at Harvard University. p. 40

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems….

“… There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Biologist Albert L. Lehninger, “Energy Transformation in the Cell,” Scientific American (May 1960), pp. 102‑114. p. 102

“From the standpoint of thermodynamics the very existence of living things, with their marvelous diversity and complexity of structure and function, is improbable. The laws of thermodynamics say that energy must run ‘downhill,’ as in a flame, and that all systems of atoms and molecules must ultimately and inevitably assume the most random configurations with the least energy-content. Continuous ‘uphill’ work is necessary to create and maintain the structure of the cell. It is the capacity to extract energy from its surroundings and to use this energy in an orderly and directed manner that distinguishes the living human organism from the few dollars’ (actually $5.66 in today’s inflated market) worth of common chemical elements of which it is composed.

Post 4

Physicist Richard P. Feynman consistent with Blum’s statement, explains entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so is all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumbers the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability, moving from order to disorder.
Agreeing with Feynman, Physicist Tony Rothman,“The Seven Arrows of Time,” Discover, vol. 8 (February 1987), pp. 62-77.

p. 70

“In terms of confusion-to-understanding ratio, probably no concept in physics rates higher—or has caused more headaches—than entropy.”

p. 72

“The dilemma is easy to see. Take a liter of gasoline and burn it. According to thermodynamics, entropy increases irreversibly—the seventh arrow says there’s no way you can run the clock backward and reconstitute your liter of gasoline. But now look at the flame under a microscope. All the molecules obey Newton’s laws precisely, and so cannot be subject to an arrow of time. The microscopic events are all time-reversible, yet the macroscopic event—the burning—isn’t.”

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:
Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital
Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.
Notice that De Duve is in agreement with Blum, Feynman, and Klein are in agreement that scientifically speaking, the 2nd law is true due to the principle that real physical processes flow from lower probability to higher probability.

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey: "An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; Du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore, hot bodies’ cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

The problem die-hard evolutionists have is that they know the second law is a fact and they KNOW evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe the absurd, that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense,that information has arisen spontaneously within systems. This is contrary to what the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us.

Victor F Weisskopf., “The Frontiers and Limits of Science,” American Scientist, vol. 65 (July-August 1977), pp. 405-411. Weisskopf is former head of the Department of Physics, MIT, President of American Academy of Arts & Science. p. 409

“The evolutionary history of the world, from the ‘big bang’ to the present universe, is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules, and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms. There is an obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization. Is this tendency in contradiction to the famous second law of thermodynamics, which says that disorder must increase in nature? The law says that entropy, the measure of disorder, must grow in any natural system.”

Smith, Charles J., “Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, vol. 1 (1975), pp. 259-265. p. 259

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter.

“… This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.

“Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value.”

Bertalanffy became so disenchanted with Evolution because of its violations of science including the 2nd law that he stated:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so
far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be
explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173
Physicist Lipson concurs with Bertalanffy, Lipson, H. S., “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May 1980), p. 138.

“It may be thought that [crystallization] is a simple analogue from which the principles of life may be developed. We know, however, that crystallization occurs because entropy S is not the deciding factor, internal energy U is also important. The quantity that must be minimized is the free energy (U-TS) and U is small for a crystal because the atoms are carefully packed together. As the temperature T increases, S becomes more important, and the crystal first becomes liquid (usually) and then gaseous.

“Therefore, if we wish to regard the birth of an animal as regulated by the principles of thermodynamics, we must believe that the developing arrangement of atoms is that of lowest internal energy. My mind boggles!

“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

I will conclude this series of posts on the 2nd law falsifies Evolution with an example of hard science that demonstrates the improbability of generation of new proteins necessary for life to have evolved from a single cell organism to all creatures extant and extinct. Again, this is strictly because of the principle that under-girds the 2nd Law, the flow of molecular states from low improbability to increasingly high probability.
For those who may not know, the ability to substitute an amino acid for another amino acid in the protein sequence without losing function is known as "ambiguity". Hemoglobin is protein that has zero ambiguity, if one amino acid is changed, the result is deleterious.
In 1967 there was a conference at Wistar where top evolutionists met to discuss the problems the 2nd law presented to evolution, as well as other challenges to Darwinian evolution.
Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of electrical engineering at MIT presented this paper entitled, 'The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory'. Eden demonstrated that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur only
once in a billion years, but if two dozen genes were involved, this same change would require 10 billion years. He then showed that it would be unlikely for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by mutations in the DNA of the bacteria, E. Coli, in 5 billion years, and to get this desired result of one ordered pair of genes depended on a population of that organism which weighs 100 trillion tons, which would cover the entire earth with E. Coli to a depth of about one inch high. He concluded that in order for macroevolution to take place, it would be necessary to replace 'chance' with 'a new determinate feature', a new yet undiscovered natural law. [In 1993, Time Magazine featured an article concerning evolution that stated that evolutionary scientist are still searching for this much needed 'organizing principle or natural law' that would enable evolution to occur naturally. So the search is still ongoing, and of course, such a law may not at all exist].
Dr. Eden then attacked Natural Selection as tautologous, and then added
"Any principal criticism of current thoughts on evolutionary theory is directed to the strong use of the notion of 'randomness' in selection. The process of speciation by a random variation of properties in offspring is too imprecisely defined to be tested. When it is precisely defined, it becomes highly implausible."

Dr. Eden then went on to report extensive genetic data on hemoglobin. Hemoglobin contains two chains, alpha and beta, and evolutionists believe one type evolved first, and then it evolved into the other type.

Dr. Eden explained that it would take a minimum of 120 point mutations to convert alpha to beta and that at least 34 of these mutations would require changing two or three nucleotides of the 140 residues in the chain. Yet, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result is highly deleterious to the organism.

Nobel laureate, Dr George Wald, responded to Dr. Eden's comments on hemoglobin: " I took a little trouble to find whether a single change in amino acid change in a hemoglobin is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. Do you know what I'm saying? ... One is hard put to find a single instance in which a change in one amino acid in sequence does not change markedly the properties." Dr. Wald also noted the enormous time required to establish a mutation throughout a population: "If you make a rough estimate..., it looks as if something of the order of 10 million years to establish a mutation in a population. That is, each of these single amino acid changes appears in individuals relatively frequently as pathology; but to establish one such change as a regular characteristic in a species seems to take something of the order of 10 million years."

Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity.

Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of common ancestry being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of finding via an undirected search a protein molecule the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may occur as frequently as once every 32 years.

Yockey's analysis had more support from studies on the actual studies on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and evolutionists were clinging to the possibility that Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to resolve this issue and Sauer et.al. provided the solid empirical data which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis.

Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations there was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose were the 92-residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:
"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92-residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 Chance in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A. Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86, 2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T. Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical Work.

This serious impediment to Evolution cannot be remedied by a very speculative appeal to other protein structures which can supply the activity of cytochrome c, the so-called "road not taken".
Unless there is an enormous number of these other “possible” proteins that function just as cytochrome c does, enough so that it becomes plausible for random mutations of the living cell to happen upon them so they can be naturally selected, then they too will never be discovered by nature.
But if there were an enormous enough number of other proteins equivalent in function to cytochrome c so as to make it plausible enough for mutations to discover said function as well as cytochrome C itself, then we should also be seeing at least thousands of these equivalent proteins operating in species today because the probability of their existence is so high. Since this is not the case, such speculations are wrong.
In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis
(Ph.D., Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):
"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins that have been examined to date, either by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The various functional classes of proteins apparently are so isolated, they could not have risen from one another." (Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).
 
Upvote 0

Chicken Little

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2010
1,341
288
mid-Americauna
✟3,163.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
thanks ArtB very nice .
it is nice to see that some are figuring out and finally trying to admit what everyone has known for what 100 years.
but we all have to know it was loosing ground in the laboratories or even goofier theories like panspermia wouldn't be gaining ground with the whackomolers would it ?
Darwin was just the excuse they needed and seems panspermia is their next fantasy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtB
Upvote 0

SteveB28

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2015
4,032
2,426
95
✟21,415.00
Faith
Atheist
A combination of quote mining, with the added ingredient of a complete misreading of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Tell me, if it is a universal principle that order always tends to disorder, how does that single fertilised cell, over the course of the next 9 months or so, become a very 'ordered' human being!?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
A combination of quote mining, with the added ingredient of a complete misreading of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Tell me, if it is a universal principle that order always tends to disorder, how does that single fertilised cell, over the course of the next 9 months or so, become a very 'ordered' human being!?
Every New Life is a Miracle!
Also: Every Refrigerator is a Miracle!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cute Tink
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
i think artb is correct in pointing out the various facts of evolution, but is incorrect in arguing for a god in the process of doing so.
evolution as we know it, in the darwinian sense, is simply wrong.
the fossil record confirms that.

science also cannot confirm that life arose from a single instance, but believes it arose by 4 or more.
there can be only one reason for this belief, and that is genes do not "evolve".

i don't know what the story is with evolution, but i'll bet any amount of money it isn't what we currently believe it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtB
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species that existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.

According to the Darwin’s theory on how evolution occurs, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. Very long lineages of descent with very gradual modification, producing innumerable generations of intermediate species, each diverting lineage undergoing the transformations of accumulating new organs and body plans that ancestors did not have, but very gradually over long periods of time.

If this were true, there had to be billions of such creatures that made up these evolutionary trends. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record, documenting the millions of the predicted gradual trends of morphological evolutionary transformations, also known as `phylogenies'. This is the one solid real science prediction of evolution, that we would be able to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true.

The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. It was suppose to provide and establish these innumerable phylogenies, but few could be found in his day, and these few were questionable. A contemporary of Darwin, a paleontologist, questioned Darwin's Theory by pointing that if Darwin's Theory be true, why do each successive layer of fossil beds merely have the same unchanged fossils of each type of animal or plant that are found at the different layers.

Darwin was well aware of this, and in his book, Charles Darwin attempts to explain this `unpleasant' fact away by appealing to the imperfection of the fossil record in his day. Darwin gambled the validity of his theory on his prediction that future generations of paleontologists will discover the phylogenies. For the next 100 and so years after Darwin, Paleontologists (and others) traveled the world hoping to make a name for theirselves by finding these phylogenies that Darwin's Theory predicts, must exist.

They were never found in the geological record. They do not exist. Not even one.

Testimonies to this fact include:

Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (From a 1953 Science Journal, as quoted in Arthur C Constance book: `The Earth Before Man', part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984):

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo- biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."

Confirming this view in 1960, Evolutionary paleontologist Neville George stated: "There is no reason to apologize any longer for the poverty of the Fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich."

Evolutionary paleontologist David Kitts, Ph.D. Zoology, Head Curator of the Department of Geology of the Stoval Museum, `Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory', Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974, p 467. Writes:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides as a means of `seeing' Evolution, It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."

Evolutionist Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of London, writes:
"At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological record that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth."

Right after the pounding of Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution presented by mathematicians at the 1966 Wistar Symposium that was held in Philadelphia and was titled, 'Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution'. A young Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge published:

"Under the influence of phyletic gradualism, the rarity of transitional series remains our persistent bugbear. ... it has stood as the bulwark of anti-evolutionist arguments: "For evolution to be true, there had to be thousands, millions of transitional forms making an unbroken chain." (Anon., 1967- from a Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlet).

Thus, not only in Darwin's day, but throughout the Twentieth century the creationists were rightly rejecting Darwin's theory on this basis, as Gould and Eldredge pointed out.

By the 1970's there came a big rumble against the two Darwinian Theories of evolution emanating from the Field of Paleontology, led by the Evolutionary Paleontologists: Stephen Gould, Niles Eldredge, Steven Stanley, and Colin Patterson. Gould and Eldredge believed they were saving The General Theory of Evolution, by casting out Darwin Theory, and the Neo-Darwinian Theory called `The Modern Synthesis'.

Gould and Eldredge believed that their new theory for the mechanism of evolution (Punctuated Equilibrium) would replace the false Darwinian Paradigm and thereby preserve the Academic credibility of the General Theory of Evolution (i.e. Common Ancestry). P.E. basically states that evolution occurs in small populations and in too short a time period, and therefore is not recorded in the fossil record. This did not at all sit well with the evolutionary biologists (e.g. Dobzhansky, Mayr, Maynard Smith, Dawkins etc.)

Perhaps unwittingly, in one of his earlier books, Ernst Mayr laid the groundwork for G&E's Theory of Punctuated Equilibria. Mayr went against the Modern Synthesis in proposing that rapid speciation occurred in geographical isolated areas and that this may account for the abrupt appearance of species and the lack of evidence of transition found in the fossil record. However, according to Paleontologist Steven Stanley: "Little attention was paid to the punctuational elements of his work until the 1970's. This paradox was partly the result of the diffuse, but ever present, counter pressure supplied by the field of genetics, in which Mayr was not a specialist. This gradualistic march of the geneticist had gathered
too much momentum to be diverted by peripheral activities."
(Steven Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable", 1981, p.78).

Now, back to Darwin's prediction:

Gould (Natural History, May 1977) writes of Darwin's gradualism:
"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. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geologic records, will rightly reject my whole theory."

"We have all heard the traditional response so often that it has become imprinted as a catechism that brooks no analysis: the fossil record is extremely imperfect. ... This traditional approach to morphological breaks merely underscores what Feyerabend meant ... in comparing theories to party lines, for it renders the picture of phyletic gradualism virtually unfalsifiable." (G&E, 1972).

Gould & Eldredge, explaining PE's departure from the Modern
Synthesis:
"To Darwin... speciation entailed the same expectation as phyletic evolution: a long and insensibly graded chain of intermediate forms. Our present texts have not abandoned this view, although modern biology has." (G&E, 1972).

By 1981 The Biologists and powers that be in Academia were very upset with the `Punctuation scientists' and forced them to tone down their theory, particularly because it is a theory not based on observing evolution in action, but rather, it was based on the inability to see evolution in action in the geological fossil record. They were forced to say their theory of PE was complementary to the Modern Synthesis (even though Gould and Eldredge already called the Modern Synthesis `dead'). They were also coerced into putting out ad hominem attacks on creationary scientists, who used the punctuationists admissions as confirmation of what they had been saying all along.

Return of: THE MYTH OF THE INCOMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD! 1991.

One evolutionist that recently argued forcibly for the incompleteness of the fossil record is geologist Tjeered H. van Andel (Nature, 294; 1991,397-398; Consider the Incompleteness of the Fossil Record). Van Andel points out that rates at which sediment is deposited in the Gulf of Mexico is well known. He applies this rate to the Wyoming marine strata that was once submerged under water similar to the Gulf of Mexico. He concludes that the Wyoming strata could have been deposited in 100,000 years using uniformitarian assumptions and the known rate of deposition from the Gulf of Mexico. He then points out that paleontologists have that strata pegged at occurring over 6 million years. Tjeered H. van Andel, like the good evolutionists he is, ignores the possibility that the strata in question most likely had been deposited over a period that could be not more than 100,000 years. Instead, he keeps the evolutionary timetable of the paleontologists and concludes that 5.9 million years of deposition is missing from the geological record and that "key elements of the evolutionary record may be forever out of reach."

Next, Van Andel tackles the question: Shouldn't the lack or erosion forces present on land continental land masses be absent at the sea bottom result in a more complete record at the sea bottom sediments?

Using the same logic as above, he points to the South Atlantic and concludes that of the 125 million years of sediment deposition, half of it is missing.


Mr. Van Andel, is it possible, even most probable, that the missing sediments are missing because the evolutionary assumptions of some evolutionary biologists and geologists are wrong and that the alleged missing sediments and the associated presumed evolutionary time never existed in the first place. Of course evolutionists cannot accept this possibility, they know evolution is a fact and, therefore the sacred evolutionary timetable must be upheld and the sediments must have existed but are now missing.

This was similar to Paleontologist J. Wyatt Durham ("The Incompleteness of our Knowledge of the Fossil Record"; Journal of Paleontology, 41: 599-565, 1967) Wherein he points out that according to evolutionary theory, 4.1 million fossilizable marine species have existed since the Cambrian and only 93,000 have been discovered. Like Van Andel, Durham argument for the incompleteness relies solely on the assumption that evolution is a fact and this many are needed to fill the evolutionary gaps. His evolutionist assumptions led him to conclude that only one out of every 100 fossil species of Cambrian invertebrates with hard parts are being found. The situation has worsened since he wrote this, fossils of every Phylum are found within a 10 million year span of the Cambrian ERA.

Problems With The Evolutionary Time Table:

Getting back to the Wyoming Strata. Kvale, Mickelson et. al. have discovered mega track dinosaur sites (Palois, 16:233-254, 2001). Previously, Dinosaur tracks were rare in Wyoming and it was considered to be mostly marine prior to this find. In fact, the tracks were found in Carbonate units that were believed to be totally marine. This caused the evolutionists to conveniently 'reinterpret' the paleoenvironment of the sedimentary rock deposits. Evolutionists now see "... previously unrecognized intertidal to supratidal carbonate units once thought to be totally marine in origin." Also, since Van Andel 1987 paper, a shoreline was invented to account for the presence of dinosaurs. [This find of buried land Dinosaurs in what scientists previously observed to be marine deposits may well be a strong evidence for Noah's flood, but evolutionists, the media, and academia will never let that fly.]

Now it gets much worse for the evolutionists, the Dinosaur tracks appear in different strata, using the established paleontologists time scale, the lower strata tracks and the upper level tracks are separated by over 3 million years. Furthermore the tracks are all similar (tridactyl, small to medium size of bipedal dinosaurs), no other tracks of other types of dinosaurs were found. All the upper layer tracks are headed in a southerly direction and fossilized egg sites and baby dinos have been found just to the north. Absent in the mega tracks are any juvenile or baby forms of tracks. The tracks are made in flood sediments. As a whole, the 3 million years for these sediment layers on the paleontological chart seems to have been laid in days by bipedal, tridactyl dinosaurs fleeing a catastrophic flood.

The lower strata tracks laid at the beginning of a great flood that quickly left many strata of sediments, followed by the water receding and the adult dinosaurs fleeing south abandoning their young and eggs
as the next wave of flooding rapidly covered and preserved the second set of tracks at the allegedly presumed 3 million year younger higher strata. This scenario is further evidenced by a wet substrate, swim tracks in the lower strata, and ripple marks formed at the same time as the tracks. These events had to occur rapidly in order to cover up and preserve the large quantities of tracks. These strata may have been formed in a day, or perhaps weeks, but not the 3 million years the evolutionists assign to it.

The answer to the question, is the fossil record vastly incomplete? : Is NO!!!

The real problem is that the fossil record is not at all as Darwin and Neo Darwinists predict it ought to be. It looks like Creation, not Evolution. The old argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against Evolution is the claim; the fossil record is very incomplete. The fossil is not very incomplete, it simply looks like special Creation, created by a very capable and intelligent being or beings. Secular Humanists whom run our education systems and control our science programs, simply refuse to give up their unsupported ideology of Secular Humanism, of which Evolution is the necessary component of the atheists creation myth.

The new argument by evolutionists for dismissing the fossil evidence against evolution is the claim by Gould/Eldredge that Evolution occurs in spurts and happens to occur too rapidly to be preserved by the fossil record (i.e. Punctuated Equilibria. Gould, Eldredge, Stanley, Patterson and many other paleontologists and geologists recognized that the fossil record looks very unlike Evolution and that this is not at all due to a poor incomplete fossil record, that the true fossil record is a tale of the abrupt appearance of the species followed by stasis for their duration in the fossil record.

Thus they invented the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria to save Evolution as a materialistic explanation of life on Earth. They were forced to tone down their claim when it became apparent that a lack of evidence is not evidence for a theory. In any case P.E. put the paleontologists and geologists at odds with the biologists who had been suppressing the true fossil record with their claims that the record was very imperfect and incomplete.

The correct observation, derived from an extensive and exhaustive review of the fossil record, is that there are no known transitional series clearly linking any of the natural groups of animals or plants above the species level.

Today leading evolutionary scientists, though not talked about publicly, know that the gaps in the fossil record are huge, and not a question of filling in a few minor speciation events .

Further, the trend has been that the more fossils found, the more fossils species discovered, the clearer the gaps and the inconsistencies become. This is contrary to the prevailing rumor that new fossil finds are closing the gaps in the fossil record. Rather, fossil finds are clarifying the gaps in the fossil record.

For example, with a few fossils, evolutionists were able to fill the gaps with their imagination. Evolutionist Niles Eldredge once wrote of what appeared to be a significant transition in lineage. The fossil record had recorded a certain trilobite species as lasting for millions of years and then becoming extinct, only to be replaced in higher strata by a similar, but significantly different, trilobite species of the same family. Is this Evolution in action? Well not quite. Professor Eldredge pointed out that - As more fossils were found, these two species turned out to be contemporaries at their point of origin in the geological strata.

Though it is true that rocks containing fossils do erode and some fossils end up in private collections, these are lame excuses for explaining away why the fossil record has not provided any of the millions of transitional series that must have existed if large scale Evolution truly occurred.

The truth of the matter is that the Fossil record is abundantly rich. Over a quarter billion fossils have been catalogued of over 300,000 species. The gaps can no longer be rationalized away with appeals to the imperfection of the fossil record.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; Transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen J. Gould, `Return of the Hopeful Monster' Natural History, Vol. 86, 1977, p. 22)

"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 on their branches, the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen J. Gould, `Evolutions Erratic Pace' Natural History, 1979. Paleontologists Steven Stanley (1979) points out:
"In part, the role of paleontology in evolutionary research has been defined narrowly because of a false belief, tracing back to Darwin and his early followers, that the fossil record is woefully incomplete. Actually, the record is of sufficiently high quality to allow us to undertake certain kinds of meaningful analysis at the level of the species."

In the same book ('Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process', p.38), Professor Steven Stanley points out: "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition."

Dr. Steven Stanley repeats this fact in his 1981 book "The New Evolutionary Time Table:

"Since the time of Darwin, paleontologists have found themselves confronted with evidence that conflicts with gradualism, yet the message of the fossil record has been ignored. This strange circumstance constitutes a remarkable chapter in the history of science, and one that gives students of the fossil record cause for concern,."

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, stated in a lecture at his Museum in 1979:
"Darwin's' theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that the fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately this is not strictly true. ... The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record, because it didn't look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of the 'Origin of the Species' to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences. ... Darwin's general
solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say the fossil record was a very incomplete one. ... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter million fossil species, but the situation has not changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky, and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse, in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - that what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated. ..."

Dr. Kenneth Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute of Zurich, ('Darwin's Three Mistakes' Geology, Vol. 14 1986) - Shows that the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record cannot be blamed on the inadequacy of the Fossil record:

"We know that Lyell and Darwin were wrong on their insistence on the imperfection of the geologic record. ... The Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary falls within magnetostratigraphic Chron C29R, which was is less than 500 years in duration (Kent, 1977). The boundary is recorded by precision stratigraphy, which has a resolution power to recognize events in thousands, if not hundreds, of years duration."

"Paleontology is now looking at what it actually finds in the fossil record. Not what it is told by that it supposed to find. As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - The Punctuated Equilibrium Pattern of Eldredge and Gould." Tom Kemp, Curator of the University Museum at Oxford University, `A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, Vol 108, No: 1485, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 66)

And what they were definitely not finding were the evolutionary transistions, the phylogenies, predicted by the Theory of Evolution.

As is often the case in evolution theory, hopeful confirmations along new lines of inquiry often end up to be bitter disappointments for the evolutionists. Evolutionists N. Macbeth and E. Saif give yet another example.

" A. The Commitment in Theory: Darwinian theory asserts the physical descent with modification has been universal, which means that every modern species is the latest link in a phylogeny. There must therefore have been hundreds of thousands of phylogenies, and it was Darwin's' expectation that these would be found. His followers, sharing his expectation, felt a duty to seek and find the phylogenies. ...

B. Another Miserable Failure: The expectations were in vain. In the 125 years since the Origin was published, nothing has been accomplished. No phylogenies have been established and the pursuit of them has fallen into disrepute." Evolutionists E. Saiff and Norman Macbeth. Evolution, 1985.


The above, and other evidences that the Fossil records fails to support the Theory of Common Ancestry because it is a record abrupt appearance the species followed stasis (no change) and with all major transformations of Bauplanes (i.e. Body plans) undocumented.

Yet even more peculiar, the whole fossil record is backwards from what evolution Theories predicted. It supposed to start with a single species - first life, which evolves into a 2nd species, which evolves into genus, which evolves into a family. And family members spread out and evolve separately into new species, genus’s, and families - until new orders become distinguished, and the process continues with many major transitions occurring over very long periods of time, eventually causing all the different Phyla to evolve into existence.

But the fossil record truly starts with the Burgess explosion of life, immediately followed by the totally unconnected Cambrian Explosion of life, where all Phyla known today are found in a very short geologic span of less than 10 million years. All major body plans appear in a very short geologic time. It is impossible for them to have evolved in that time period. The only life observed before these explosions of life are four bacteria that go back billion years, plus one unrelated type whose name I can't remember at this time, totally different from the bacteria. These 5 are alive and well today, and completely unchanged.

Conclusion, the fossil record does not look at all like Evolution, but it does resemble special creation: i.e. sudden appearance of each Kind of creature followed by stasis (i.e. + no change) for each their duration in the fossil record.

ArtB, I will probably not, it is a strain to do this.

My greetings and best wishes to he who goes by the name Loudmouth."


I knew I read this before somewhere.....

http://pigeonchess.com/2008/05/25/a-horse-is-a-horse-unless-of-course…/

and

http://pigeonchess.com/2010/01/24/epic-horse-exhaust/

Those links are a reply to your above post. It even quotes, word for word, parts of that post.

Yet, you made this post today, while the rebuttal articles linked to here are from 2008 and 2010

Here's a quote from that article:
"On the site is a page titled “Horse Evolution – Fact or Horse Manure?” written by creationist Arthur Biele, who, judging by a Google search on his name, has been pestering people with nonsense in various internet discussion forums for years"

This might sound like an ad hominion, but it isn't.
What it is, is a prime example of how creationists continue to repeat the same old arguments (word for word, copy pasted) - eventhough those arguments have been refuted years ago.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
The following are quotations from scientists who understand the 2nd law as derivative of the law of increasing probability, and with full application to open systems as well as isolated.
Physicist Harold F Blum, “Perspectives in Evolution,” American Scientist, vol. 43 (October 1955), pp 595‑610. pp. 595-6

“A major consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that all real processes go toward a condition of greater probability. The probability function generally used in thermodynamics is entropy…. Thus orderliness is associated with low entropy; randomness with high entropy…. The second law of thermodynamics says that left to itself any isolated system will go toward greater entropy, which also means toward greater randomness and greater likelihood.”

Sommerfeld, Arnold, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, Lectures on Theoretical Physics, vol. V (New York: Academic Press, 1956), p. 155.

View attachment 161382 (eq 10)

[where = entropy generated locally, s = entropy flux, e = mass density, View attachment 161381= time rate of entropy change.]

“Equation (10) together with the inequality  = can be regarded as the differential formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The statement in integral form, namely that the entropy in an isolated system cannot decrease, can be replaced by its corollary in differential form which asserts that the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not, and irrespective of whether the process under consideration is irreversible or not.”

Ross, John, “2nd Law of Thermodynamics,” Letter-to-the-Editor, Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58 (July 7, 1980), p. 40. Ross was at Harvard University. p. 40

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems….

“… There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Biologist Albert L. Lehninger, “Energy Transformation in the Cell,” Scientific American (May 1960), pp. 102‑114. p. 102

“From the standpoint of thermodynamics the very existence of living things, with their marvelous diversity and complexity of structure and function, is improbable. The laws of thermodynamics say that energy must run ‘downhill,’ as in a flame, and that all systems of atoms and molecules must ultimately and inevitably assume the most random configurations with the least energy-content. Continuous ‘uphill’ work is necessary to create and maintain the structure of the cell. It is the capacity to extract energy from its surroundings and to use this energy in an orderly and directed manner that distinguishes the living human organism from the few dollars’ (actually $5.66 in today’s inflated market) worth of common chemical elements of which it is composed.

Post 4

Physicist Richard P. Feynman consistent with Blum’s statement, explains entropy as the flow from order to disorder, from states of lower probability to states of higher probability. He gives the example of filming two gases, a gas of white particles and a gas of black particles, in a container separated by a boundary. He calls this state highly ordered as all the black particles in the container are all on one side and all the white particles are on the other side. When the boundary is removed, the particles will mix together, order decreases and disorder increases. This is considered an irreversible process. But Feynman has an objection, if you play the film backwards, the particles separate and all the white particles go to one side of the container and the black particles go to the other side of the container, and not only that, but careful observation shows that no physical laws are broken, all the particles are moving at just the right speed and are forming just the right collisions at just the right angle for this to happen. Thus the process is reversible and, Feynman adds, so is all the fundamental laws of physics. So what is it that makes the natural mixing of the two gases irreversible? Feynman's answer is `probability'. The number of states (particle distribution) of disorder far outnumbers the number of states of order, so much so that it becomes unrealistic to expect reversibility. The gases are moving from states of very low probability to states of much higher probability, moving from order to disorder.
Agreeing with Feynman, Physicist Tony Rothman,“The Seven Arrows of Time,” Discover, vol. 8 (February 1987), pp. 62-77.

p. 70

“In terms of confusion-to-understanding ratio, probably no concept in physics rates higher—or has caused more headaches—than entropy.”

p. 72

“The dilemma is easy to see. Take a liter of gasoline and burn it. According to thermodynamics, entropy increases irreversibly—the seventh arrow says there’s no way you can run the clock backward and reconstitute your liter of gasoline. But now look at the flame under a microscope. All the molecules obey Newton’s laws precisely, and so cannot be subject to an arrow of time. The microscopic events are all time-reversible, yet the macroscopic event—the burning—isn’t.”

The 2nd law is a central question for those who hold to spontaneous generation:
Nobel Laureate, Biologists Christian De Duve, in his 1995 book `Vital
Dust', states that any and all scenarios for spontaneous generation must be certain that each step of the process flows from lower probability to higher probability so as not to violate the 2nd law.
Notice that De Duve is in agreement with Blum, Feynman, and Klein are in agreement that scientifically speaking, the 2nd law is true due to the principle that real physical processes flow from lower probability to higher probability.

According to the eminent information theoretician & evolutionist Yockey: "An uninvited guest (Schroedinger, 1955; Du Nouy,1947; Prigogine, and Nicolis 1971; Gatlin, 1972; Prigogine, Nicolis & Babyloyantz, 1972; Volkenstein, 1973) at any discussion of the origin of life and evolution from the materialistic reductionist point of view, is the role of thermodynamic entropy and the 'heat death' of the universe which it predicts. The universe should in every way go from states which are less probable to those which are more probable. Therefore, hot bodies’ cool; energy is conserved but becomes less available to do work. According to this uninvited guest, the spontaneous generation of life is highly improbable ( Prigogine, Nicolis, and Babyloyantz, 1972). The uninvited guest will not go away nor will the biological evidence to the contrary notwithstanding."

The problem die-hard evolutionists have is that they know the second law is a fact and they KNOW evolution is a fact, therefore the two must be compatible. This forces them to believe the absurd, that order and specified complexity arises out of chaos, that nonsense generates sense,that information has arisen spontaneously within systems. This is contrary to what the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us.

Victor F Weisskopf., “The Frontiers and Limits of Science,” American Scientist, vol. 65 (July-August 1977), pp. 405-411. Weisskopf is former head of the Department of Physics, MIT, President of American Academy of Arts & Science. p. 409

“The evolutionary history of the world, from the ‘big bang’ to the present universe, is a series of gradual steps from the simple to the complicated, from the unordered to the organized, from the formless gas of elementary particles to the morphic atoms and molecules, and further to the still more structured liquids and solids, and finally to the sophisticated living organisms. There is an obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization. Is this tendency in contradiction to the famous second law of thermodynamics, which says that disorder must increase in nature? The law says that entropy, the measure of disorder, must grow in any natural system.”

Smith, Charles J., “Problems with Entropy in Biology,” Biosystems, vol. 1 (1975), pp. 259-265. p. 259

“The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter.

“… This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue.

“Bertalanffy called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. I would go further and include the problem of meaning and value.”

Bertalanffy became so disenchanted with Evolution because of its violations of science including the 2nd law that he stated:
"The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so
far from the criteria of HARD science has become dogma can only be
explained on sociological grounds." Biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, as quoted by Huston Smith, 'The Post Modern Mind' (New York, Crossroads, 1982) p. 173
Physicist Lipson concurs with Bertalanffy, Lipson, H. S., “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, vol. 31 (May 1980), p. 138.

“It may be thought that [crystallization] is a simple analogue from which the principles of life may be developed. We know, however, that crystallization occurs because entropy S is not the deciding factor, internal energy U is also important. The quantity that must be minimized is the free energy (U-TS) and U is small for a crystal because the atoms are carefully packed together. As the temperature T increases, S becomes more important, and the crystal first becomes liquid (usually) and then gaseous.

“Therefore, if we wish to regard the birth of an animal as regulated by the principles of thermodynamics, we must believe that the developing arrangement of atoms is that of lowest internal energy. My mind boggles!

“If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? … I think, however, that we must … admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

I will conclude this series of posts on the 2nd law falsifies Evolution with an example of hard science that demonstrates the improbability of generation of new proteins necessary for life to have evolved from a single cell organism to all creatures extant and extinct. Again, this is strictly because of the principle that under-girds the 2nd Law, the flow of molecular states from low improbability to increasingly high probability.
For those who may not know, the ability to substitute an amino acid for another amino acid in the protein sequence without losing function is known as "ambiguity". Hemoglobin is protein that has zero ambiguity, if one amino acid is changed, the result is deleterious.
In 1967 there was a conference at Wistar where top evolutionists met to discuss the problems the 2nd law presented to evolution, as well as other challenges to Darwinian evolution.
Dr. Murray Eden, Professor of electrical engineering at MIT presented this paper entitled, 'The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory'. Eden demonstrated that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change, this would occur only
once in a billion years, but if two dozen genes were involved, this same change would require 10 billion years. He then showed that it would be unlikely for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by mutations in the DNA of the bacteria, E. Coli, in 5 billion years, and to get this desired result of one ordered pair of genes depended on a population of that organism which weighs 100 trillion tons, which would cover the entire earth with E. Coli to a depth of about one inch high. He concluded that in order for macroevolution to take place, it would be necessary to replace 'chance' with 'a new determinate feature', a new yet undiscovered natural law. [In 1993, Time Magazine featured an article concerning evolution that stated that evolutionary scientist are still searching for this much needed 'organizing principle or natural law' that would enable evolution to occur naturally. So the search is still ongoing, and of course, such a law may not at all exist].
Dr. Eden then attacked Natural Selection as tautologous, and then added
"Any principal criticism of current thoughts on evolutionary theory is directed to the strong use of the notion of 'randomness' in selection. The process of speciation by a random variation of properties in offspring is too imprecisely defined to be tested. When it is precisely defined, it becomes highly implausible."

Dr. Eden then went on to report extensive genetic data on hemoglobin. Hemoglobin contains two chains, alpha and beta, and evolutionists believe one type evolved first, and then it evolved into the other type.

Dr. Eden explained that it would take a minimum of 120 point mutations to convert alpha to beta and that at least 34 of these mutations would require changing two or three nucleotides of the 140 residues in the chain. Yet, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result is highly deleterious to the organism.

Nobel laureate, Dr George Wald, responded to Dr. Eden's comments on hemoglobin: " I took a little trouble to find whether a single change in amino acid change in a hemoglobin is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance. Do you know what I'm saying? ... One is hard put to find a single instance in which a change in one amino acid in sequence does not change markedly the properties." Dr. Wald also noted the enormous time required to establish a mutation throughout a population: "If you make a rough estimate..., it looks as if something of the order of 10 million years to establish a mutation in a population. That is, each of these single amino acid changes appears in individuals relatively frequently as pathology; but to establish one such change as a regular characteristic in a species seems to take something of the order of 10 million years."

Hubert Yockey, in 1978, did theoretical calculations to determine the information content of cytochrome C while allowing for ambiguity.

Mr. Yockey based his calculations on phylogenetic sequence comparisons. His calculations revealed that an undirected search arriving at this a protein has a probability of occurrence of 1 in 10^65.

Such a probability is certainly very damaging to any possibility of common ancestry being at all plausible. To counter this, a scientist with excellent mathematical skills, Mr. Ken Dill, using different assumptions than Yockey, arrived at a 1 in 10^15 probability of finding via an undirected search a protein molecule the size of cytochrome C, which under other reasonable assumptions may occur as frequently as once every 32 years.

Yockey's analysis had more support from studies on the actual studies on varying amino acids in cytochrome C, but this was inconclusive and evolutionists were clinging to the possibility that Dill's analysis may be correct. Hard experimental data was needed to resolve this issue and Sauer et.al. provided the solid empirical data which turned out to confirm Yockey's analysis.

Robert T. Sauer and his M.I.T. team of biologists undertook the scientific research of substituting the 20 different types amino acids in two different proteins. upon each substitution, the protein sequence was reinserted into bacteria to be tested for function. They discovered that in some locations of the protein's amino acid chains, up to 15 different amino acids may be substituted while at other locations there was a tolerance of only a few, and yet other locations could not tolerate even one substitution of any other amino acid. One of the proteins they chose were the 92-residue lambda repressor.

Sauer et. al. calculated that:
"... there should be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92-residue domain. ... the calculation does indicate in a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that does specifies a particular protein fold. Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 Chance in 10^63, of the total possible 92 residue sequences."

Sauer et. al. go on to highlight that Yockey (1978) had obtained a similar result for cytochrome C.

Biologists R.T. Sauer, James U Bowie, John F.R. Olson, and Wendall A. Lim, 1989, 'Proceedings of the National Academy of Science's USA 86, 2152-2156. and 1990, March 16, Science, 247; and, Olson and R.T. Sauer, 'Proteins: Structure, Function and Genetics', 7:306 - 316, 1990.

This hard science is a striking confirmation of Yockey's theoretical Work.

This serious impediment to Evolution cannot be remedied by a very speculative appeal to other protein structures which can supply the activity of cytochrome c, the so-called "road not taken".
Unless there is an enormous number of these other “possible” proteins that function just as cytochrome c does, enough so that it becomes plausible for random mutations of the living cell to happen upon them so they can be naturally selected, then they too will never be discovered by nature.
But if there were an enormous enough number of other proteins equivalent in function to cytochrome c so as to make it plausible enough for mutations to discover said function as well as cytochrome C itself, then we should also be seeing at least thousands of these equivalent proteins operating in species today because the probability of their existence is so high. Since this is not the case, such speculations are wrong.
In summing up, I quote creationists Professors Percival Davis
(Ph.D., Life Sciences) and Dean Kenyon (Ph.D. Biology):
"These calculations [Sauer's] showed that the odds of finding a folded protein are about 1/10^65, a striking confirmation of Yockey's calculations. It means all proteins that have been examined to date, either by comparison of analogous sequences from different species, have been seen to be surrounded by an almost infinitely wide chasm of unfolded, nonfunctional, useless protein sequences. There are in fact no "stepping stones"! In other words, an undirected search will not hit upon any of the end protein sequences sought in the time allowed by the age of the universe. The various functional classes of proteins apparently are so isolated, they could not have risen from one another." (Of Pandas and People, 1993 edition).

Go out, look up. See that giant ball of nuclear infernus?

Well, it feeds the earth with workable energy 24/7. Something your gish gallop completely ignores.

I believe you learn this at the age of 10 in a proper school.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
i think artb is correct in pointing out the various facts of evolution, but is incorrect in arguing for a god in the process of doing so.
evolution as we know it, in the darwinian sense, is simply wrong.
the fossil record confirms that.

science also cannot confirm that life arose from a single instance, but believes it arose by 4 or more.
there can be only one reason for this belief, and that is genes do not "evolve".

i don't know what the story is with evolution, but i'll bet any amount of money it isn't what we currently believe it is.
"evolution as we know it, in the darwinian sense, is simply wrong.
the fossil record confirms that."

Of course. The same way dropping a ball disproves gravity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Larniavc
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
"evolution as we know it, in the darwinian sense, is simply wrong.
the fossil record confirms that."

Of course. The same way dropping a ball disproves gravity.
Obviously if gravity were true a canon ball would fall faster than a feather, even in a vacuum.

Therefore things go down because God pushes them down.
 
Upvote 0

Ada Lovelace

Grateful to scientists and all health care workers
Supporter
Jun 20, 2014
5,316
9,297
California
✟1,002,256.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
The whole "size does matter" thing sorta works in inverse proportion when it comes to posts by creationists on the internet soapboxing about evolution. A cogent, concise, original post is more impressive to me than ginormous walls of texts consisting of copied and pasted quote-mined propaganda.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The whole "size does matter" thing sorta works in inverse proportion when it comes to posts by creationists on the internet soapboxing about evolution. A cogent, concise, original post is more impressive to me than ginormous walls of texts consisting of copied and pasted quote-mined propaganda.
i wouldn't necessarily call the bits about the fossil record propaganda.
there is a reason science has incorporated punctuated equilibrium into darwinism, and it sure isn't because the record shows "transitional fossils".
has that thought ever occur to you?
science would never incorporate this theory if it thought the record was "incomplete".
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
i think the biggest problem people like the cadet has with what koonin wrote is that he (koonin) states that gradualism has become untenable.
evolution IS NOT driven by small accumulating changes as once believed.
this puts a very large group of people in a very bad situation, and i can honestly see why there is all the hoopla.
koonin isn't wrong either when he said it would "earn the ire of many".

edit:
the funny thing is, evolutionist such as ayala came to the very same conclusion over 30 years ago.
but alas he too "never said it".

outright fraud by criminal authors if i ever heard it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
That's because evolutionists continue to ignore the natural world around them with breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. Asian mates with African and produces an Afro-Asian. Through the process of recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There was no evolution and there are no missing transitional forms between the Afro-Asian and the Asian and African. The Afro-Asian appears suddenly in the record as well.

They have simply incorrectly classified 90% of the fossil record as separate species - when in reality they are merely different breeds of their respective species - just as we observe in the real world.

These:
images


Are simply different breeds of the same species as are these:
small-dog-breeds-17.jpg


There is no reason to pretend the fossil record shows anything other than what we observe around us as to how life propagates.

Whether they incorrectly call babies and adults of the same species as separate species, or incorrectly classify fossils of man, only by refusing to correct their mistakes can they continue with the same false claims. Only by refusing to accept that finches that all interbreed and produce fertile offspring are different breeds of the same species and calling them separate species - can their ideas of speciation have a hope of surviving.

Even if the science they claim to follow tells them that animals that interbreed and produce fertile offspring are the same species. But being they like to classify everything as a separate species to get their names in the books as the discoverer of a new species - actual science gives lie to their claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArtB
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.