Talk with a Creationist

[AFray]

I posted a link to another CF discussion. Have you read it? It's illuminating and should give you many examples.

There are also the trivial examples of the different appearances of the different races. These have arisen over a relatively short period of time, sometimes as little as 10,000 years.

I'll try and get to this soon. I only have so much time because I have life responsibilities.

 

[Chalnoth]

Can you elaborate? I didn't understand what you were saying here.

Mark Kennedy is of the opinion that because our brain is much larger than that of chimpanzees, we cannot have evolved from the same ancestors. Pretty much the rest of us on these forums just don't buy his argument at all. Just look at dogs, for instance: all dogs are genetically closer to one another than humans are to chimpanzees. And yet, consider the unbelievable disparity in size and shape between dogs. If humans could create that amount of variability within 135,000 years of selective breeding (perhaps it's less, we don't yet really know), who's to say that the right selective pressures in our ancestors couldn't have tripled the size of our brains in the past 5-8 million years?

 

[LittleNipper]

This all makes it sound that organisms desire to evlove and so they do. How many times have your thought of evolving ----- and you posess logic. Animals and insects are simply about their work of existing. They are not making choices to upgrade the future.

 

[Split Rock]

What are the phenotypic mutations that scientists point to in lets say humans? From the definition of phenotype on wikipedia it seems to me they are saying that phenotype is determined by variation within a genotype caused by nature? But variation within a species by genes that already are there doesn't point to a mechanism that has the force of creating new species does it? Or do I understand the relationship between genotype and phenotype wrong?

Genotype: refers to the genome of an individual. This includes the entire genetic code, even changes in the code that are effectively neutral.

Phenotype: refers to the physical and biochemical characteristics of an individual.
While these are dependent on the genotype, differences in genotype do not always translate into differences in phenotype.

In other words, two indivuals can have differenct genotypes, but still have the same phenotype.

Phenotypes can include, height, hair color, metabolism, intelligence, etc., in addition to genetic disorders such as hemophilia, Down's syndrome, etc.

My issue was when I look around or when I was in my health classes I don't see the very slow process of inherited phenotypic mutations. That is why I was talking about stages. Is it wrong for me to assume that they should be there? If there are tons of mutations and lets say we get a phenotypic change, according to the evolutionary theory, they should be all over the place right? I say this because only a very few of them are going to be favorable right? And those few that are favorable will only be passed on so long as that person is helped in reproducing. So am I blind? By definition it seems these phenotypic changes would be very small and build up over time to result in something that determines better fitness. So let’s take humans, where are they?

Such changes would be difficult for you to notice, just by looking at people. Some differences, such as hair color, eye color, etc. are more obvious than others.

Also, keep in mind that gene flow between human populations (migration, immigration) is very strong nowadays. Also, our technology allows us to avoid many selective pressures. How many people do you see with eyeglasses? Nowadays, being myopic (near-sighted) is not a hinderence to reproduction. In the past, it would have reduced your fitness.

It is strange to me that finding a transitional these days can be news by what the evolutionary theory postulates. Darwin himself says that the fossil record must have an inconceivably great amount of tranistionals. How can it conceivably be only "old hat in a sense" when all life came about over billions of years and Darwinism has been around for over a hundred years with people seeking out the evidence of it? I'll go into more depth on what I think about this when I respond to a few later posts.

The vast majority of transitionals either did not leave a fossil record, or left no record that will be discovered in the near future. Nevertheless, we have identified many such transitionals, and keep identifying more every year.

 

[Split Rock]

This all makes it sound that organisms desire to evlove and so they do. How many times have your thought of evolving ----- and you posess logic. Animals and insects are simply about their work of existing. They are not making choices to upgrade the future.

Individuals do not "desire" to evolve. How long have you been posting here in this forum? The fact that you still have such basic misconceptions amazes me.

 

[Chalnoth]

This all makes it sound that organisms desire to evlove and so they do.

This is the view of some subset of creationists, such as supersport. It's called Lamarckism, and was shown to be false about a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

[Ryal Kane]

This all makes it sound that organisms desire to evlove and so they do. How many times have your thought of evolving ----- and you posess logic. Animals and insects are simply about their work of existing. They are not making choices to upgrade the future.

Think of it this way. Species don't 'want' to evolve any more than smaller rocks 'want' to go to the bottom if you shake a bucket of pebbles.

 

[Pesto]

Genotype: refers to the genome of an individual. This includes the entire genetic code, even changes in the code that are effectively neutral.

Phenotype: refers to the physical and biochemical characteristics of an individual.
While these are dependent on the genotype, differences in genotype do not always translate into differences in phenotype.

Just to clarify, for my own sake...

If there are two people with genetic sequences

...GAA...
...GAC...

Both sequences code for glutamine. These two people would be different genotypes, but the same phenotype?

 

[Split Rock]

Just to clarify, for my own sake...

If there are two people with genetic sequences

...GAA...
...GAC...

Both sequences code for glutamine. These two people would be different genotypes, but the same phenotype?

Only if the two people had altered function or regulation of the protein (or other gene product) coded for.

Generally there are three possibilities:

1. The difference does not result in a change in protein sequence. No change in phenotype. (this can happen because multiple triplet codons can code for a particular amino acid).

2. The difference does result in a change in protein sequence, but no change in function or regulation. No change in phenotype.

3. The difference results in a change in protein sequence, and the function or regulation of the protein changes. Change in phenotype.

There are other complications, such as situations where there are multiple copies of the gene which can compensate for a lost or altered function in one copy.

I hope that makes sense now.

 

[Ondoher]

I'm almost always in the general apologetics forum when I'm on this site. So welcome me to my first post on this forum! haha.

My desire is that you read where I come from and where I am at and tell me why evolution as far as speciation is concerned is the best explanation for what I see. I'm not asking you to prove it but I'm interested in you seeing where I am coming from and maybe you can shed light on why I am wrong in certain instances, where I am misinformed

My background. I am a college grad with a background and interest in evolution but the best thing to describe myself is that I am a Christian. I love Christ, I seek God in the bible daily, and pray on a regular basis. In regards to my view on life I am an Old Earth creationist. In college I took courses that interested me such as a course that investigated the historical relationship between science and religion as well as an epistemology course which basically studied what makes what you say ultimately true. So I have been exposed to Dawkins, Gould, Behe, Johnson, as well as many other writers on the subject of evolution and the relationship between science and religion.

To be upfront, I believe in evolution and can see its affects to the extent that I can see that natural selection absolutely happens. I do not believe in evolution as the mechanism which creates new species, or speciation. So here are the things that I'd like you to respond to or explain further to me. I currently am not in school and I assume by virtue of this forum that there will be a certain number of well informed people who deal with this on a daily basis that can respond intelligently to these different observations.

From the courses that I've taken and the texts read in them I understand that for speciation to work out there needs to be a lot of time. Billions of years from what I understand.

Speciation, as in the reproductive isolation of a population, can happen much more quickly than that. There are pages of documented cases of speciation both in the laboratory as well as in the wild. The genetic divergence necessary to introduce such reproductive isolation needn't always be that great.

This time allows for all the small mutations and variations which are guided blindly (the blind watchmaker) which eventually result in the complexity that we see today.

Mutations are essentially random. However, the success a mutation will have in propagating within a population will depend on either luck in the case of a largely neutral mutation, or on any benefit or detriment it lends towards the reproductive success of its owner.

1: Is it safe for me to say that there must have been a very large amount of mutations that were not favorable and they were not carried on by procreation?

Most mutations are neutral, and have some chance of becoming fixed in a population.

Only once and a while a favorable mutation would take place and then it would get passed on. My problem is this, and it comes off the first premise which you can tell me if it’s wrong: why is it that I don't see tons of mutations happening?

Mutations are pretty common. Every human has somewhere between 100 and 200 mutations. Most of these do nothing. Also, mutations that are neutral now, may become advantageous later as environment changes.

Shouldn't I? I mean if all life, everything came from gradual change via evolution where is all the change?

The genetic variability we find in different species is the result of evolution. There is a great deal of this.

I see stasis with each piece having its own function.

Each piece of what? New mutations take longer to fix in a larger population. That's why speciation frequently happens in a smaller, isolated population.

I understand that the eye according to evolutionary theory would have many many simpler forms before it. Shouldn't I be able to look at myself or all around me and these sorts of transitions would be completely apparent since they take billions of years and all the mutations would be in different stages?

There are all sorts of eyes in the animal kingdom. Many are more primitive than the Vertebrate eye.

2: I don't understand this about the theory. Why is it that I can listen to a scientist say that many many transition skeletons have been found yet we have punctuated equilibrium?

PE explains the patterns we find in the fossil record. It is essentially an argument for allopatric speciation.

The problem is that most people don't really know what a transitional fossil is. We do not have the ability to test hypotheses about direct ancestry, so a transitional is not claimed to be a direct ancestor. What we can test is the relationships between fossils using cladistic methods. So, we can take a fossil species like Archaeopteryx lithographica and place it closest to therapod dinosaurs and at a very basal position within aves. This is because it exhibits some primitive characters of theropods as well as some more derived characters from aves. The specifics of such specimines tells us the sorts of changes going on during the evolution of birds, and from what group they evolved.

This is my problem: all life comes from billions of years of transitions, thus Darwin hypothesizes that the fossil record will unearth an infinitely great amount of these transitions. Would I be having this conversation if this were the case?

Apparently.

I know this might set some of you off but understand this first: Now why is it news when some scientist unearths something that might be a transition? The problem is that it shouldn't make the news or papers when finds like this happen because it should be old hat.

You'll never see a headline: "Proof of evolution found at last!" However, the specific nature of these finds can be quite exciting. For instance, when a new fossil like Tiktaalik roseae files in a previous gap in the record.

We are talking about every single living thing transitioning from a single cell or even less then a cell? Why is it news when this happens? Doesn't this alone speak to the complete disparity of what should be all over?

Also, don't confuse the lay press with scientific publications.

Even worse is this: some evolutionists finally realize that the primary thing seen in the fossil record is stasis across the board. This alone sends off warning signals to me because it’s the exact opposite of what we should see right? Or do I understand the fossilized records of billions of years of evolution for every single living thing wrong?

Yes, you do not quite understand what it is scientists expect to find in the fossil record.

If you think I'm lying then why do we have punctuated equilibrium?

PE is an emphasis on allopatric speciation. That is that species are more likely to originate due to isolation of small populations.

Punctuated equilibrium (or punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which states that most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history. When evolution does occur, it happens sporadically (by splitting) and occurs relatively quickly compared to the species' full duration on earth. For this reason, the theory is sometimes called evolution by jerks.[1] Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism (“evolution by creeps”), which hypothesizes that most evolution occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis).

Yes, this is what I said above. Nobody has ever really been of the opinion that evolution moved at a slow steady pace. Gould sort of hyped his own position a little too much.

So evolution happens in small isolated groups quickly so that no record is really visible in the fossils and thus accounts for what we see in the fossil record? So an infinite amount of transition skeletons is not what we should see now huh?

We expect that fossils species should fit into the phylogeny of life in a position that is consistent with when it lived. We should not find a crown primate in cambrian strata, for instance. And no extinct species should violate this tree.

3: Even if the creation of an eye is possible over billions of years that eye is still useless without the proper system to read the information and process it. So you want to tell me that not only did the eye gradually evolve blindly but that the capacity of the nervous system and brain to read the information evolved with it? Does someone explain this? This borders on miraculous for me.

An eye that can see half as good as a modern eye is better than no eye at all.

4: Why would something like this evolve: Let’s say I'm at a party and I cut a two pieces of cake, one is larger. What one am I supposed to give to my friend. That’s right, the larger one. So where did this come from? I give another more food while I suffer. If you’re going to tell me that it evolved so that they would in turn be nice to me then that would assume some sort of foresight now wouldn't it?

Game theory proposes some interesting ways of approaching such behaviors. As well us an understanding of kin selection.

5: If we are nothing but a slow work in progress slowly evolving to become more then what we were a few thousand years ago why do we have morality? Frankly if you believe that morality and wrong and right are taught by society I think you are very deceived. All I have to do is look at my little sister. My parents don't need to sit down with her and tell her every single thing that is right or wrong. She knows what is fair, unfair, right or wrong. Where did this come from? It simply doesn't make any sense and we might as well get rid of it if evolution is true.

Humans are moral creatures. We agree. We just disagree about the reasons. Moral humans are better able to function as a society. Humans in a society are more fit than those without.

Since a billion years ago we were small cells what wrong can I do if I murder another? After all, that person, or at least there sense of personhood is only the result of a lot of chemicals and a few billion years of evolution. In fact why would there be any rule about not murdering another human if human or that definition is only a transition anyway. Since evolution must continue since it explains the past.

Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. Besides, we already agreed that humans are moral creatures.

6: This point I just need guidance for sure. I have not had any reading or course on this information so how is it that scientists unearth skeletons and they are able to determine the subtle evolutionary changes in biological systems when all they have is a skeleton? I know that probably sounds stupid to those of you who are informed but please guide me to where I can figure this out or just flat out explain it to me.

They do this by analysing the distribution of subtle character traits. Such as the shape or existence of a specific bones, or the number of bumps on a tooth, etc.

Of course, point out to me where I am just wrong. And explain thoroughly. If I'm just not informed yet, explain fully why these observations aren't warranted.

Because they are mostly the result of ignorance.

I'll try and respond ASAP, as you can see from my posting history I'm not a forum hawk. I'll do my best to read what you give me and analyze your responses.

Good luck.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hoo boy. Define the terms transcription and transcript error as you are using them, please. Because you are definitely not using these terms the way real biology uses them.

I really hope this isn't going to be another "amino acids code for proteins" moment.

I don't know why real biology would be important to you now since it never was in the past. Mutations are the result or transcript errors. On the chance that you are asking a real question here transcription is the first step in the cell cycle duplication, the DNA is copied. The molecular mechanisms of life are the very things that preclude this morphology because of the meticulous quality control stations in cell replication. The essence of genetics is the structure and function of the gene that follows well established patterns that are resistant to fundamental changes, especially in the DNA code following replication in the S phase of the cell cycle. DNA replication is incredibly accurate, you might get 1 base in 100,000 reproduced incorrectly and as I have already shown there are multiple checkpoints to ensure that any errors in the replication process are repaired at checkpoints in the cell cycle.

If DNA replication were a factory the workers would be the enzymes that run the machinery, handle the raw material, forge the material, inspect the product for discrepancies, repair deficient parts and, if need be, reject defective products and reclaim the raw material. During replication the DNA that has a three dimensional structure that we have become familiar with, the spiral of the double helix. During replication enzymes unwind the double helix into complimentary strand to form the messenger RNA (mRNA), the transportation RNA (mRNA) then moves it out of the nucleolus and sends it to the ribosome where it is transcribed. It is crucial that the mRNA template reading frame on the first codon be kept open, if it is not there will be a stop codon inserted which means it is defective and will not produce a functional protein. The material will end up being broken down and reclaimed (catabolic reaction) and this happens with clockwork precision.

BINDING AND THE
CONTROL OF GENE TRANSCRIPTION

I tell people I'm actually tracking down evolutionary mechanisms and they don't seem to believe me. Determining the extent to which genetic mechanisms can affect a change is essential to a creationist model. It should be noted that the most common effect from a mutation would be cancer or some equally serious deleterious effect:

A bulge occurs where an extra base winds up on one side of the DNA strand, like a ladder rung that goes only halfway across.

DNA Bulge

 

[Chalnoth]

No, Mark, the most common effect from a mutation, by far, is nothing whatsoever. When there is an effect, yes, the most common effect is that it is deleterious. When a mutation is very deleterious, the most common effect is that it just kills the cell. There's only a small subset of mutations that are both deleterious, and still allow the cell to operate.

After all, if the most common mutations caused cancer, how is that so few people get cancer compared to the couple of mutations that occur each time a cell divides?

 

[shernren]

I don't know why real biology would be important to you now since it never was in the past.

For someone who was not formally educated in biology I know a whole lot more than you do.

Mutations are the result or transcript errors. On the chance that you are asking a real question here transcription is the first step in the cell cycle duplication, the DNA is copied. The molecular mechanisms of life are the very things that preclude this morphology because of the meticulous quality control stations in cell replication. The essence of genetics is the structure and function of the gene that follows well established patterns that are resistant to fundamental changes, especially in the DNA code following replication in the S phase of the cell cycle. DNA replication is incredibly accurate, you might get 1 base in 100,000 reproduced incorrectly and as I have already shown there are multiple checkpoints to ensure that any errors in the replication process are repaired at checkpoints in the cell cycle.

If DNA replication were a factory the workers would be the enzymes that run the machinery, handle the raw material, forge the material, inspect the product for discrepancies, repair deficient parts and, if need be, reject defective products and reclaim the raw material. During replication the DNA that has a three dimensional structure that we have become familiar with, the spiral of the double helix. During replication enzymes unwind the double helix into complimentary strand to form the messenger RNA (mRNA), the transportation RNA (mRNA) then moves it out of the nucleolus and sends it to the ribosome where it is transcribed. It is crucial that the mRNA template reading frame on the first codon be kept open, if it is not there will be a stop codon inserted which means it is defective and will not produce a functional protein. The material will end up being broken down and reclaimed (catabolic reaction) and this happens with clockwork precision.

<irrelevant image deleted>

BINDING AND THE
CONTROL OF GENE TRANSCRIPTION

I tell people I'm actually tracking down evolutionary mechanisms and they don't seem to believe me. Determining the extent to which genetic mechanisms can affect a change is essential to a creationist model. It should be noted that the most common effect from a mutation would be cancer or some equally serious deleterious effect:

<irrelevant image deleted>

A bulge occurs where an extra base winds up on one side of the DNA strand, like a ladder rung that goes only halfway across.

DNA Bulge

Transcription and RNA have nothing to do with DNA replication.

Real biologists think that DNA replicates like this:

As you can see, RNA is nowhere involved here. You are thinking of this:

which is completely different.

Good grief.

Now tell me again, why do mutations happen? What is a "transcription error" and why on earth would it affect DNA instead of mRNA?

 

[Pesto]

Only if the two people had altered function or regulation of the protein (or other gene product) coded for.

Generally there are three possibilities:

1. The difference does not result in a change in protein sequence. No change in phenotype. (this can happen because multiple triplet codons can code for a particular amino acid).

2. The difference does result in a change in protein sequence, but no change in function or regulation. No change in phenotype.

3. The difference results in a change in protein sequence, and the function or regulation of the protein changes. Change in phenotype.

There are other complications, such as situations where there are multiple copies of the gene which can compensate for a lost or altered function in one copy.

I hope that makes sense now.

Yeah, I think so. What I posted would be an example of situation 1, right?

 

[Ondoher]

For someone who was not formally educated in biology I know a whole lot more than you do.



Transcription and RNA have nothing to do with DNA replication.

Real biologists think that DNA replicates like this:

As you can see, RNA is nowhere involved here. You are thinking of this:

which is completely different.

Good grief.

Now tell me again, why do mutations happen? What is a "transcription error" and why on earth would it affect DNA instead of mRNA?

Bumpped with the hope that mark will address his errors.

 

[AFray]

Mark Kennedy is of the opinion that because our brain is much larger than that of chimpanzees, we cannot have evolved from the same ancestors. Pretty much the rest of us on these forums just don't buy his argument at all. Just look at dogs, for instance: all dogs are genetically closer to one another than humans are to chimpanzees. And yet, consider the unbelievable disparity in size and shape between dogs. If humans could create that amount of variability within 135,000 years of selective breeding (perhaps it's less, we don't yet really know), who's to say that the right selective pressures in our ancestors couldn't have tripled the size of our brains in the past 5-8 million years?

thank you

 

[AFray]

Please back this up.

Again, thank you for everyone who has already contributed their time to this thread. I will take the time to keep on looking over the stuff you posted; life is just really busy for me so I get to it in small spurts. I started looking over the different type of mutations there are and how they occur as well as some examples that were cited. Here is some stuff to back up my assertion about the existence of stasis or the immutability of a species in the fossil record which tied into my assertions about punctuated equilibrium.

Darwin: "why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being as we see them, well defined?" The Origin of Species

That basically has to do with today though. He says that before he offers a theory of extinction.

Here is Gould on the subject:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1: Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2: Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed.""

Here is a quote from Dawkins in regards to the fossils in the"Cambrian explosion": "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Here is Gould again:

"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence"

"the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record"

Here is Gould on paleontology:

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record ... the trade secret of paleontology"

Niles Eldredge:

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." 1972 paper "Punctuated Equilibria, an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism"

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Again, thank you for everyone who has already contributed their time to this thread. I will take the time to keep on looking over the stuff you posted; life is just really busy for me so I get to it in small spurts. I started looking over the different type of mutations there are and how they occur as well as some examples that were cited. Here is some stuff to back up my assertion about the existence of stasis or the immutability of a species in the fossil record which tied into my assertions about punctuated equilibrium.

Darwin: "why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being as we see them, well defined?" The Origin of Species

That basically has to do with today though. He says that before he offers a theory of extinction.

Here is Gould on the subject:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1: Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2: Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed.""

Here is a quote from Dawkins in regards to the fossils in the"Cambrian explosion": "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Here is Gould again:

"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence"

"the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record"

Here is Gould on paleontology:

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record ... the trade secret of paleontology"

Niles Eldredge:

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." 1972 paper "Punctuated Equilibria, an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism"

And you can surely tell us what conclusions Darwin, Gould and Eldregde drew from these observations.

 

[Split Rock]

Here is some stuff to back up my assertion about the existence of stasis or the immutability of a species in the fossil record which tied into my assertions about punctuated equilibrium.

Afray, I suggest you stop looking at quotes mined to take them out of context (especially ones with "..." in the middle) and look at the original literature first hand.

In some cases we do see gradual change in the fossil record, while in other cases we do not. The biggest problem is that the fossil record is incomplete, and always will be.

In either case, gradual change or PE, there is evolutionary change, therefore no species immutability. Do not make the mistake of most creationists and pick and choose what you want from the evidence. Take it all, or reject it all and stick to theological arguments.

 

[Baggins]

Again, thank you for everyone who has already contributed their time to this thread. I will take the time to keep on looking over the stuff you posted; life is just really busy for me so I get to it in small spurts. I started looking over the different type of mutations there are and how they occur as well as some examples that were cited. Here is some stuff to back up my assertion about the existence of stasis or the immutability of a species in the fossil record which tied into my assertions about punctuated equilibrium.

Darwin: "why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being as we see them, well defined?" The Origin of Species

That basically has to do with today though. He says that before he offers a theory of extinction.

Here is Gould on the subject:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1: Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

2: Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed.""

Here is a quote from Dawkins in regards to the fossils in the"Cambrian explosion": "It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history."

Here is Gould again:

"We can tell tales of improvement for some groups, but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating excellence"

"the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record"

Here is Gould on paleontology:

"the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record ... the trade secret of paleontology"

Niles Eldredge:

"We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change], all the while really knowing that it does not." 1972 paper "Punctuated Equilibria, an Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism"

Why would you think a load of quotes mined from their context would be taken seriously as evidence?

Have you read the original works ?

Do you know what those posted went on to say, i.e. do you know the context of the quotes?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html

I strongly advise you to visit this page where you will find most if not all of your quotes put back into their original context and explained.


This is a rather shoddy trick to pull. I hope you aren't going to turn out to be another creationist copying and pasting from creationists websites without question.