Evolution of the Gaps

[paul becke]

Here is a good little conspectus of the Darwin of the Gaps' contributions to science, posted by a poster with the username, 'nword', to a Messianic Christian site called Israel Today. I don't imagine he'll object to my using his post.

'Dont try to mix up genuine science using intelligent design with a ridiculous theory which has no evidence - you cannot give me one example as I predicted.
Richard Dawkins can give no evidence at all on the theory - he just bashes the bible.
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."
Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
"I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an 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."
H. S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester, A paper published by The Institute of Physics, IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990
"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, S. J. GOULD, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have dta only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.", Nat. His., V.86, p.13
STORY TIME, COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat. History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another. ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. ... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of tree which we can call factual." HARPER'S, Feb. 1984, p.56
You will need to throw away your school textbooks and Dawkins fantasy series and do proper science rather than a faith based religion like the "theory" of evolution.
Still waiting for ONE example out of the trillions - no one else has found one - have you informed the scientific community of your " evidence" that bears became whale ....lol

 

[Davian]

 

[Rubiks]

Neither God nor Evolution are "of the gaps" theories. Both try to explain the evidence we have, neither should we view the two as mutually exclusive.

 

[NannaNae]

no but there is tons of evidence for 6 fingers on the 6th day .. for the number of man is 6 not 5 ! we are de- evolving and the scientist are the proof.

 

[paul becke]

I notice you were unable to rebut the truths, withering to evolution and its groupies, uttered by those very distinguished scientists cited.
Why avoid the issue, with childish nonsense, if you can rebut them.

You can't. The best minds(sic) of evolutionists have failed. And you are smarter? Much of a muchness I suspect, actually. You might well be a star in their firmament, but that's not saying an awful lot. Perhaps you'll get a Nobel Prize as the first provider of water-tight evidence for evolution.

Still, it's good to see jumble of captions referring to magic, etc. You are finally beginning to suspect, it seems, what everyone else knows: Modern physics has shown your atheist world-view/paradigm to be the most hilarious concoction of fantasies school kids could think up. In the very teeth of these new, unassaible, empirically proven truths of quantum physics, such as mind being the ultimate reality, not matter - discovered as long ago as 1926. Keep at it. The truth will set you free.

PS: You seem one confused dude, giving your mood as, 'blessed'. Do atheists believe there is such a thing as being blessed. if so, by whom? The God they regularly excoriate and say they won't believe in, because He's nasty!

 

[Davian]

I notice you were unable to rebut the truths, withering to evolution and its groupies, uttered by those very distinguished scientists cited.
Why avoid the issue, with childish nonsense, if you can rebut them.

You can't. The best minds(sic) of evolutionists have failed. And you are smarter? Much of a muchness I suspect, actually. You might well be a star in their firmament, but that's not saying an awful lot. Perhaps you'll get a Nobel Prize as the first provider of water-tight evidence for evolution.

Those prizes have already been given out.

"To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology. Reviewing the last 50 years of Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology, I asked, "Is training in evolutionary biology necessary for a thorough understanding of the award-winning discoveries and work resulting from each breakthrough?" By my criteria, understanding of evolution is necessary in 47 of 50 cases. From vaccines, viral cancer genes, and nerve cell communication to drug trials, and genes controlling cholesterol and heart disease, evolutionary insights are crucial."

Evolution is a Winner ? for Breakthroughs and Prizes | NCSE

Still, it's good to see jumble of captions referring to magic, etc. You are finally beginning to suspect, it seems, what everyone else knows: Modern physics has shown your atheist world-view/paradigm to be the most hilarious concoction of fantasies school kids could think up. In the very teeth of these new, unassaible, empirically proven truths of quantum physics, such as mind being the ultimate reality, not matter - discovered as long ago as 1926. Keep at it. The truth will set you free.

Even if the theory of evolution were actually falsified tomorrow, how would that establish that gods are even possible? Which of us is appealing to magic?

 

[lasthero]

no but there is tons of evidence for 6 fingers on the 6th day .. for the number of man is 6 not 5 ! we are de- evolving and the scientist are the proof.

Might you be so kind as to share your 'tons of evidence'?

 

[Dizredux]

I have been hearing for over 60 years people say they have found something that will destroy evolution as we know it. From what I have read, this eminent destruction has been almost here the last 150 years but yet somehow the Theory of Evolution continues to get stronger and stronger to where it is now considered as possibly the most supported theory in science.

Paul, you may well find the first workable idea to damage or even destroy the theory of evolution but you that is what you will be, the first. So far you don't seem to have provided much as I have not noticed any signs of impact of your ideas.


Keep trying to your hearts content though. Who knows you might actually find something.


Dizredux

 

[NannaNae]

Might you be so kind as to share your 'tons of evidence'?

google OOparts and start reading.

 

[lasthero]

google OOparts and start reading.

I got a bunch of conspiracy nut sites. Got anything not written by a crank?

 

[RichardParker]

I got a bunch of conspiracy nut sites. Got anything not written by a crank?

You want evidence for creationism, but you don't want to have it from a conspiracy-nutter?
Dude, pick one! You can't have both!

 

[juvenissun]

Even if the theory of evolution were actually falsified tomorrow, how would that establish that gods are even possible? Which of us is appealing to magic?

You should never use this argument for your own benefit.
If evolution is false, then creation is true.
There is no other alternatives.
This is a scientific and logical conclusion.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You should never use this argument for your own benefit.
If evolution is false, then creation is true.
There is no other alternatives.
This is a scientific and logical conclusion.

There very well could be alternatives, even if we haven't thought of them. Evolution being disproven doesn't make creationism, especially not the specific creationism of your religion, correct.

 

[lasthero]

This is a scientific and logical conclusion.

Coming from the guy who thinks rocks are alive.

 

[Davian]

You should never use this argument for your own benefit.
If evolution is false, then creation is true.
There is no other alternatives.
This is a scientific and logical conclusion.

No, that is a false dichotomy. Sarah was right.

If the science was demonstrated to be wrong, the science would fixed with further investigation. The many flavours of creationism have been investigated, and found to be lacking. Logic continues to elude you.

 

[juvenissun]

There very well could be alternatives, even if we haven't thought of them. Evolution being disproven doesn't make creationism, especially not the specific creationism of your religion, correct.

There is nothing else to think about.
Things change with a speed.
If the speed is infinitely fast, then it is creation.
If the speed is not infinitely fast, then it is evolution.
One parameter and clear cut boundary. There is nothing in between.

 

[PsychoSarah]

There is nothing else to think about.

No one can ever claim this.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

There is nothing else to think about.
Things change with a speed.
If the speed is infinitely fast, then it is creation.
If the speed is not infinitely fast, then it is evolution.
One parameter and clear cut boundary. There is nothing in between.

Silly juve.

 

[poikilotherm]

As with all post giving long lists of "quotes" I will address the first only due to time constraints.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument..."

The letter goes on to say;

...The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

So the writer accepts that there are many transitionals, but assigning any of them as ancestral is beyond what the fossils themselves can tell us.

-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

See below the complete letter from the author;


Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."
I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.
That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.
I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.
Yours Sincerely,
[signed]
Colin Patterson


Experience tells me to assume the rest of the quote mines in your post are similarly dishonest.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...

This argument seems to be based on two ideas:

1. Scientists don't know everything about evolution.

2. There isn't a fossil for ever ancestor of modern man back to the first life.

Obviously scientists don't know everything about evolution. But to use this as a reason to justify YEC is silly.

And equally obviously, there isn't a fossil for every ancestor of modern man. But again, to use this as a reason to justify YEC is silly.