-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!
- Thread starter ArtB
- Start date
- Status
Let's not forget about the code found in every atom.
What the ID supporters always forget is that all matter has information.
What the ID supporters always forget is that all matter has information.
Upvote
0
- Oct 19, 2013
- 120
- 9
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Hello Loudmouth, I still like you, why do you do this, your defenses for evolution does not serve you well. Why do you believe evolution when science actually says "NO!" to evolution.
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. Each Body plan appears abruptly in the geologic record, and each body type remain the same for the duration in the fossil record, regardless whether they be extinct or extant.
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 = Zero evolution.
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 transitional forms, 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 single cell species 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 (no change of their original body plan) for each species duration in the fossil record, and those living today.
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. Each Body plan appears abruptly in the geologic record, and each body type remain the same for the duration in the fossil record, regardless whether they be extinct or extant.
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 = Zero evolution.
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 transitional forms, 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 single cell species 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 (no change of their original body plan) for each species duration in the fossil record, and those living today.
Upvote
0
Let's start right there. What is the fossil evidence against evolution? How are the known fossils inconsistent with evolution?
Upvote
0
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
What about it, looks like simple junior high chemistry, very nice
For extra credit, what is the thermal dynamic reaction?
No helping RickG!
Upvote
0
ayala himself was quoted, by lewin, and published in a well respected source.
why can't you get over it?
Upvote
0
What about it, looks like simple junior high chemistry, very nice
For extra credit, what is the thermal dynamic reaction?
No helping RickG!
Concentrated 2H2O of that is used as rocket fuel. Lesser concentrations have other uses, including medical. Sorry, couldn't help it.
Upvote
0
Why can't you find anything in Ayala's own writings that supports your case?
Why can't you use primary sources?
Upvote
0
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
Upvote
0
So you agree that even simple Jr. High chemistry contains information?
Are you asking for the formula that includes gains or losses in enthalpy?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
eldredge seems to support what ayala said in the piece by boyce.
gould seems to support it too, in the same article that lewin penned.
the MA experiment i posted also seems to support it, proving the decreasing fitness of all lines tested.
the incorporation of HGT into the tree of life also seems to support it.
it's becoming abundantly clear to me that the biggest stumbling block in evolution theory is not the creationists, it's the gradualists.
for some reason, gradualism MUST survive, whether it's true or not.
Upvote
0
FollowerOfJesus
Active Member
Information provided by the teacher on the subject matter.
Close enough +1 for knowing enthalpy
Upvote
0
Check my update on that post, I miss read it. I don't think this will give its use away, well actually it has a number of uses, but it is an important aspect found in ice cores.
Upvote
0
Why don't you quote something out of Eldredge's own writings?
[qutoe]gould seems to support it too, in the same article that lewin penned.[/quote]
Primary sources, please.
Why can't you find anything in Gould's own writings that supports your case?
The one with the highly elevated mutation rate? That does nothing to test the actual mutation rate.
"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
I see that you still can't accept what Koonin says.
Punctuated equilibrium is part of the modern synthesis.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,593
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That has been shown not to be true by modern genetics. The fact that your cling to the old model in light of the evidence shows a weakness with evolution theory.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
