Dutchunter's Article

troodon · Nov 13, 2003

Part 1:

Since Dutchunter appears unwilling to start a new thread I will do so for him.

This article was his "falsification" of evolution that he posted in the Dr. Dino thread. The quotes that follow come from the site.

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor.

True

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring.

Totally, completely, and patently false. I will spare you the usual rant about punctuated equilibrium (although the author does appear to be ignorant of its existance) and take a different route to addressing this and will use dinosaurs as an example. There are, currently, less than 3000 total dinosaur specimens that have been collected. A large portion of which (some 500 or so) come from a total of about 10 species that are extraordinarily well known (Iguanodon, Allosaurus, Coelophysis, etc.) while the rest are categorized into about 150 other known species. Now, I ask Dutchunter to use his critical thinking abilities for a second and think of this from an evolutionary point of view. Dinosaurs existed for approximatly 170 million years and eventually evolved into at least 7 sub-orders. Also, the vast majority of the fossil specimens found coexisted with the animals they are incased with. That is to say that the conditions which favor fossilization are extremely rare and when they do exist several (from dozens to hundreds) of specimens will be preserved in the sediment. What this means is that these 3000 specimens aren't even close to being evenly spread throughout the Mesezoic; instead they exist in small little clumps of populations. This acts to obscure the evolutionary relationship between any and all dinosaurs to a degree that YECs, in their ignorance of the rarity of fossilization, are unwilling to accept.

For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had.

The author either has absolutely no idea what the course of evolution on our planet was like or is fudging facts in order to present a better case. Fish evolved into amphibians, not reptiles. Some examples of the transition from fish to ampthibians can be seen towards the bottom of the page here

Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed.

These most certainly exist and I have even made a thread with a challenge for YECs to distinguish between the birds and dinosaurs. To date no one has accepted

Dutchunter, would you care to take a stab at it: here?

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them.

Millions and billions of them would have lived. Chances are remote to the extreme that any would have been fossilized and then had their fossils survive for 450 millions years.

More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record

No, not necessarily.

The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world.

If this author were correct, and fossilization were as common as he pretends it is, after 450 million years of land inhabitation the ground would be, literally, filled to the brim with fossils.

We do not live in this world. I would truly appreciate it if someone (anyone) could explain to me how animals could be fossilized as regularly as he supposes. What mechanism would bury them fast enough in the proper type of environment to warrant fossilization.

There is no such mechanism.

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains

Darwin was, of course, mistaken on this point. He had no knowledge of punctuated equilibrium nor did he think about the mechanism which would fossilize so many animals.

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms.

Darwin was aware of an absence of some transitional forms in the 1850s. Almost all have disappeared by now, with relatively few holes left to be filled.

That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

Ha! Let's see a YEC name a chapter in one of their books that!

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate.

It was and, by golly, still is. Perhaps the author should take a moment out of his life to realize how huge the planet is and how many fossils still await us.

He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found

Again, he was wrong. Darwin was not God nor was he a prophet of sorts. He was a human being capable of error. An error that Gould solved a long time ago and it's a shame that the author never got that memo.

Believing in Darwin's prophecy, evolutionist paleontologists have been digging up fossils and searching for missing links all over the world since the middle of the 19th century.

And we shall continue.

Despite their best efforts, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered.

Lies. Name two related taxa and I will do my darndest to detail the transitions between them.

All the fossils unearthed in excavations have shown that, contrary to the beliefs of evolutionists, life appeared on earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

Only in the author's made up world where everyone and their mothers somehow get fossilized.

Trying to prove their theory, evolutionists have instead unwittingly caused it to collapse.

Again the author shows himself to not be in touch with reality when he thinks that paleontologists are still trying to "prove" evolution when we stopped beating that dead horse 140 years ago.

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another

Do you ever wonder how all these paleontologists always seem to think that evolution is rediculous and yet they never question it? Perhaps it's because these quotes always seem to be out of context; this quote specifically looks like it's praising punctuated equilibrium.

A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God

Again, another quote describing the validity of punctuated equilibrium; not independant creation.

These gaps in the fossil record cannot be explained by saying that sufficient fossils have not yet been found, but that they one day will be.

This is not sufficient and Gould demonstrated how it was not sufficient.

The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt

I have no idea why the author quotes this basic definition of punctuated equilibrium as some sort of evidence for creation.

The living honeybee is no different than its fossil relative, which is millions of years old.

Only by the Oligocene are bees modern looking. Bees prior to the Oligocene look quite different: source

Also, we have no idea what the differences in behavior or genetics are like; to call it "no different" is absurd due to the limited information at hand.

The 135 million year old dragon fly fossil is no different than its modern counterparts.

Yeah, except for the 2 foot difference in wingspan they are soooooooooo similar

There are also morphological differences; see here

A comparison of ant fossil aged 100 million years and an ant living in our day clearly indicates that ants do not have any evolutionary history

Bwahahaha! Yes of course! and because my grand-mother has remained "unchanged" for 20 years she must never have changed and, ergo, was never born! Ingenious logical deduction, way to go YEC author dude!

Let me ask you a question Dutchunter, if a species exists which has no pressure acting upon it to change why would it change? If ants have no selective pressure being brought against them to change in overall body design, what mechanism would *force* them to change?

When terrestrial strata and the fossil record are examined, it is to be seen that all living organisms appeared simultaneously.

what?

The oldest stratum of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years.

Um, false.

The oldest known fossils are about 3.4 billion years old

Even the oldest vertebrate fossil is 560 million years old.

And you trust this guy?

troodon · Nov 13, 2003

Part 2:

The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period emerged all of a sudden in the fossil record-there are no pre-existing ancestors.

again, the author is making stuff up

The fossils found in Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates.

ROFL, sea hedgehogs?

assuming he means the dictionary definition of sea hedgehogs he is flat out lying.

Perhaps he meant Hallucigenia?

I've also never heard of earthworms being present in the Cambrian either. Annelids, for sure, but not earthworms. I think he's lying.

One thing you should take not of is he sort of dismisses the truly strange Cambrian biota as "other complex invertebrates" when they are bizarre and I cannot imagine them ever coexisting with modern sea life.

This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the "Cambrian Explosion" in geological literature.

Indeed it is. For a very nice, thorough discussion on the Cambrian Explosion I urge you to read this. I read your article, please, if you read any of the links I provided, read this one.

Most of the creatures in this layer have complex systems have complex systems and advanced structures, such as eyes, gills, and circulatory systems, exactly the same as those in modern specimens.

That is a very premature statement. Many of these fossils are very sketchy and it is impossible to tell if they have modern eyes or circulatory systems.

For instance, the double-lensed, combed eye structure of trilobites is a wonder of design. David Raup, a professor of geology in Harvard, Rochester, and Chicago Universities, says: "the trilobites 450 million years ago used an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today".

And yet this professor has no problem with natural selection being this engineer. Why take his word for it when he says that the eye is very complex and yet not take his word for it when he says that it isn't *too* complex for natural selection?

These complex invertebrates emerged suddenly and completely without having any link or any transitional form between them and the unicellular organisms, which were the only life forms on earth prior to them

I have already posted 2 links on this topic.

which is a deathtrap for evolutionary theory

Recent findings indicate that almost all phyla, the most basic animal divisions

You should take note that the only chordate present in the early Cambrian is a worm with a notochord... just thought you should be aware.

The same article notes that for such complex and distinct living groups to be explained according to the theory of evolution, very rich fossil beds showing a gradual developmental process should have been found, but this has not yet proved possible

Funny how they don't quote that part... you'd think they would

This differential evolution and dispersal, too, must have required a previous history of the group for which there is no fossil record.

I discussed this previously.

But fossils of these alleged ancestral arthropods are lacking.

In one of the links above, Precambrian arthropods are mentioned

Even if evidence for an earlier origin is discovered

Do you think he knows that it exists and is just withholding(sp?) that information?

it remains a challenge to explain why so many animals should have increased in size and acquired shells within so short a time at the base of the Cambrian

Do you think he even paused to wonder if the reason so many new fossils pop up is directly because they evolved exoskeletons? Exoskeletons which are fossilized much better than soft tissue?

How the earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists

Why would we answer that question? That isn't the scenario we are presented with. We are presented with a scenario in which we have a large explosion of animal diversity *****WITH***** common ancestors! Wow!

As Dawkins is forced to acknowledge, the Cambrian Explosion is strong evidence for creation, because creation is the only way to explain the fully-formed emergence of life on earth.

That's not what he said. Dawkins, when he says, "For example the Cambrian strata of rocks... are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" is not saying that the explosion is evidence for creation, he says that it mimics it. Kids all across America getting toys Christmas day is not evidence for the existance of Santa Claus, it is evidence for a situation that mimics the existance of Santa Claus. Namely, parents deceiving their children.

"Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preüexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."

What do you want to bet he agrees that an omnipotent creator was not involved in animal diversification?

"If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection."

Yes, it did destroy slow modification, just as Darwin predicted. It was replaced with, you guessed it, punctuated equilibrium! Tah-dah!

"Baffling (and embarrasing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us".

LOL, why did the author have to insert "and embarrasing"? Weird.

I would address the rest of the chapter but the author provides a total of zero examples and instead lets the reader's mind wander as to what the possible contradictions can be.

We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages

Big deal. So Cnidaria isn't monophyletic. I won't lose sleep.

Dutchunter's Article

troodon

Be wise and be smart

More options

troodon

Be wise and be smart

More options

Similar threads

Dutchunter's Article

troodon

Be wise and be smart

troodon

Be wise and be smart

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency