The Fossil Record: Darwin's Disaster

[Christian Soldier]

"Mark Ridley is hardly dismissing or debunking evolutionary theory in "the problems with evolution." as can be clearly seen in the more extensive quote:"

Your reading comprehension level is weak. I NEVER CLAIMED that Ridley was attempting to dismiss or debunk evolution! I intentionally cited him PRECISELY BECAUSE he is a dedicated evolutionist, and he admits the fossil record evidence for evolution is QUITE WEAK. So thank you for producing the at-length quote below---you prove that my original quote was IN CONTEXT and on the money.

I have added bold emphasis to parts of the quote YOU provided below, which SUPPORTS my assertion that the fossil record is remarkably poor evidence for evolution:


"The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example. He attributed the absence of examples to the incompleteness of the fossil record (cf. Mendelejeff's account on the elements' table). Thus the chapter of the Origin of Species in which he considers this first geological argument is entitled 'On the Imperfections of the Geological Record'. There are now some cases in which evolutionary change can be seen in the fossil record. A few dozen could be listed. But the most striking thing about them is their rarity. This being so, the first geological argument cannot provide a strong plea for evolution. With the accumulation of evidence it may become a powerful argument; but at present it is not. Nor, of course, is the rarity of observable evolution in the fossil record an argument against evolution. That rarity is exactly what an evolutionist would expect if the fosssil record contained many gaps: and it is known that the fossil record is very incomplete."

 

[Christian Soldier]

"THis one aint exaclty a refutation of evolutionary theory either"

Thank you so much for providing the longer quote! Ager, an evolutionist of international repute, in his presidential address to the Geological Association in 1976---CLEARLY REJECTS GRADUALISM---one of the cardinal tenets of Darwinism! Now that one of the cardinal tenets has been clearly rejected by top modern evolutionists like Ager, Gould and Eldredge et al.; we must ask the hard question---how many more of Darwin's cardinal tenets are BUNK?!

You again show your lack of comprehension by thinking that I posted Ager's quote in order to "refute" evolution. However, thanks to your longer quote---we can add the name of one more top modern evolutionist who REJECTS one of the "holiest" of Darwinian beliefs---GRADUALISM!


"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do more than millions of years of mutation. The point emerges that, if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we fin-over and over again-not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another
' Derek Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record", Proceedings of the Geological Association, (1976)


Thanks again, buddy! Keep those quotes coming, you're helping ME immensely!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Christian Soldier, you truly have me laughing out loud. Your OP lists a long selection of quotes with absolutely no explanation from you, and now you want to tell us they all sum up to "Gradualism is dead"?!

Fine. Great. I laugh out loud about the terms "cardinal tenet" & "holiest" of Darwinian "beliefs", but that is a separate story. That's just you letting your colors show.

So, quiz time:

If strict darwinian gradualism should eventually fall, in favor of punctuated equilibrium or some other theory of evolutionary tempo more compatible with the fossil evidence, would that be the first of Darwin's tenets to be rejected in favor of a better theory? Does this constant scrutiny of the theory in light of evidence strengthen or weaken a theoretical edifice like the new synthesis of evolution?

 

[Christian Soldier]

"I will tell you what soldier. If I were your commanding officer, I would have you court martialed ."

Sorry buddy, but you're definitely not officer material. Your extended quote proves me right AGAIN! I was already well aware that Czarnecki was an evolutionist and critical of Creation. That's why his quote is important, he's an ANTI-Creationist who admits that the fossil record is sorry evidence for evolution---exactly what I've been saying!

All you've proven is that my quote was in context, and I'm correct! Thanks again, pal!


"A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geologic 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 as described in the Bible…On the other hand, (creationists) fervently pursue scientific studies legitimizing their own beliefs. Their Harvard is San Diego's Institute for Creation Research, which employs eight doctorate equipped scientists full time to demonstrate the feasibility of creationism." Mark Czarnecki, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's (January 19, 1981)

 

[Christian Soldier]

"care to back that up?"

I wasn't the one who brought up the age of the earth. So you and Jerry need to start doing the backing. So far, you both have only provided hot air.

 

[Jerry Smith]

If strict darwinian gradualism should eventually fall, in favor of punctuated equilibrium or some other theory of evolutionary tempo more compatible with the fossil evidence, would that be the first of Darwin's tenets to be rejected in favor of a better theory? Does this constant scrutiny of the theory in light of evidence strengthen or weaken a theoretical edifice like the new synthesis of evolution?

Since you clearly have no quibble with evolution, and you are here as an advocate of punctuated equilibrium (having chosen that debate to enter, and to pursue by method of posting strings of quotes), I wonder if you could answer the question above.

I will put out the word that there is a member at CF who wishes to debate gradualism & see if anyone turns up that would care to take up the contrary position with you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Christian Soldier: Even IF it were proven, the evolutionist opinion of about 4.5 billion years is nowhere near old enough to be able to account for the evolutionary fairy tale. So I could care less if the 4.5 hypothesis is right or not.

chickenman: care to back that up?

Christian Soldier: I wasn't the one who brought up the age of the earth. So you and Jerry need to start doing the backing. So far, you both have only provided hot air.

Is this your way of saying you intend to provide only hot air to back up the claim you made about how much time is needed for evolution?

Am I suprised?

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Again, all of this about "proven". There is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If you reject that evidence, as you reject the evidence for evolution, then the short-hand term for a person like you is "YEC" - Young Earth Creationist."

You and some of your evo buddies brought up the age of the earth issue. Now let's see some of your "strong" evidence, so far you've provided nothing but your usual meaningless blather.

Please note that Jerry is trying to change the subject, ever since Cretaceous was kind enough to help me prove that the fossil record cannot substantiate gradualism---as attested to by several of the world's leading evolutionists.

Jerry is a self-proclaimed expert on everything, he's even an expert on me! He's never met me or talked to me, yet he continues to falsely claim that I am a YEC. Jerry, like the super-majority of evolutionists, is highly presumptuous---to the point of thinking he knows more about a person's own philosophy than they do! This egotistical presumptuousness is clearly the key to why evos so blindly follow the pseudo-scientific religion of evolution.

Most evos believe that evolution "disproves" God, when it actually does nothing of the sort. World-renown evolutionary scientist Edward O. Wilson, in his book Consilience, candidly admits that science may indeed prove the existence of God some day! A powerful admission, coming from one of the high priests of evolution. Evos on this forum will scream their worn out canard that I'm "taking his words out of context"---so I challenge them to obtain a copy of the book and read it for themselves.

 

[chickenman]

you call it pseudo-scientific. The majority of the scientific community feel that its a perfectly valid scientific theory which has great predictive and explanatory power. Scientists should be the ones to decide what is and isn't scientific. Not some forum troll on an ego trip

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
"Again, all of this about "proven". There is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. If you reject that evidence, as you reject the evidence for evolution, then the short-hand term for a person like you is "YEC" - Young Earth Creationist."

You and some of your evo buddies brought up the age of the earth issue. Now let's see some of your "strong" evidence, so far you've provided nothing but your usual meaningless blather.

Since anyone who has been in this debate for more than a week and has been half-way paying attention will already be aware of the evidence, I will just post a link to a summary of the evidence. If you care, you can follow it. If this is all about who can shout the loudest, keep shouting, in bold font.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Please note that Jerry is trying to change the subject, ever since Cretaceous was kind enough to help me prove that the fossil record cannot substantiate gradualism---as attested to by several of the world's leading evolutionists.

It has been duly noted that many of the world's leading scientists in fields related to evolution agree that gradualism isn't strongly evidenced in the fossil record. As a matter of fact, I asked you a question with regards to that point:

If strict darwinian gradualism should eventually fall, in favor of punctuated equilibrium or some other theory of evolutionary tempo more compatible with the fossil evidence, would that be the first of Darwin's tenets to be rejected in favor of a better theory? Does this constant scrutiny of the theory in light of evidence strengthen or weaken a theoretical edifice like the new synthesis of evolution?

Were you planning on answering that question?

Jerry is a self-proclaimed expert on everything,

Care to point me to the post where I proclaimed myself an expert on anything? No? Just making things up?

he's even an expert on me! He's never met me or talked to me, yet he continues to falsely claim that I am a YEC.

You pulled the "quote-mining" page right from the YEC play book, you say that you reject the evidence for an old earth, and you confuse the tempo of evolution with the fact of evolution. Does one need to be an expert on ducks to discern that the thing by the pond is doing too much quacking to be a goose?

Jerry, like the super-majority of evolutionists, is highly presumptuous

How presumptious of you to presume that a super-majority of those who do not deny evolution because of their delicate philosophical sensibilities are presumptious.

Most evos believe that evolution "disproves" God, when it actually does nothing of the sort.

Yet, instead of citing a name of such a person (who you and the "super-majority" of creationists are highly presumptious enough to make assumptions about their philosophy), you only cite one "evolutionist" who appears to believe the opposite of what you say.

World-renown evolutionary scientist Edward O. Wilson, in his book Consilience, candidly admits that science may indeed prove the existence of God some day!

That isn't good evidence for your claim that most "evos" believe that evolution disproves God.

A powerful admission, coming from one of the high priests of evolution.

Evolution has no priests. I think that is probably what you don't like about it.

Evos on this forum will scream their worn out canard that I'm "taking his words out of context"

Should we be suprised if that turned out to be the case? We tire of the canard as quickly as you do. Kindly leave off the quote-mining, and we could perhaps take the debate to a more substantial level.

 

 

[Joe V.]

Eh, guess I was a putz about this Christian Soldier guy, so I'll shut my trap now. Still, I haven't seen him offer up a theory better than evolution. Got any, CS, or are you just gonna keep on moaning?

- Joe

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

What is this, the old bait and stitch?
One minute we are debating IF evolution occurs then we are debating HOW evolution occurs. I am glad that CS concurs that evolution occurs. Gradualism vs punctuated equalibrium is a subject of some debate. I suppose that reality is a combination of both. I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive. There is evidence for both. As far as Darwin's gradualism; at one point Darwin thought that the Tertiary would have to be 300 million years long (it was actually 64). Darwin to evolution is what Newton was to gravity. - a good starting point, but not able to tell the whole story.

Christian Soldier said: "Most evos believe that evolution "disproves" God"
Would you care to demonstrate that. Oh, and BTW, Dawkins' opinion hardy qualifies as "Most Evos". Can you show statistics that "most" people who accept evolutionary theory as reality are athiest.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"What is this, the old bait and stitch?"

That's bait and SWITCH, buddy. Which is exactly what you and Jerry are pros at.

One minute we are debating IF evolution occurs then we are debating HOW evolution occurs. I am glad that CS concurs that evolution occurs.

Yours and Jerry's reading comprehension continues to be gravely suspect. I never said that evolution occurs. You and Jerry are putting words in my mouth again. Please stop with the semantic games.

Punctuated equilibrium, like gradualism---cannot be verified by the fossil record. The fossil record is therefore ruled out as a so-called "proof" of evolution.

Gradualism vs punctuated equalibrium is a subject of some debate. I suppose that reality is a combination of both. I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive. There is evidence for both. As far as Darwin's gradualism; at one point Darwin thought that the Tertiary would have to be 300 million years long (it was actually 64). Darwin to evolution is what Newton was to gravity. - a good starting point, but not able to tell the whole story.

Both can't be true. That's why the battle between gradualists and punctuationists has gotten quite heated at times.

Christian Soldier said: "Most evos believe that evolution "disproves" God"
Would you care to demonstrate that. Oh, and BTW, Dawkins' opinion hardy qualifies as "Most Evos". Can you show statistics that "most" people who accept evolutionary theory as reality are athiest.

Whenever a Creationist or ID advocate presents scientific evidence supporting a Creator or designer, hordes of evos go on the attack in internet forums, periodicals etc. Don't try to deny it, you'll just make yourself look monumentally ignorant. Look at ANY Creation-evolution or ID-evolution debate site on the internet---and you'll see virtually every evo arguing against God or a designer. If the evos allegedly have no problem with God, why do they bend over backward and argue ad nauseum on every tiny point in order to deny God or a designer? Why?

 

[edgeo]

CS:  Yours and Jerry's reading comprehension continues to be gravely suspect. I never said that evolution occurs. You and Jerry are putting words in my mouth again. Please stop with the semantic games.

Do you have something substantial to add to this debate or do you wish to continue name calling?

Punctuated equilibrium, like gradualism---cannot be verified by the fossil record. The fossil record is therefore ruled out as a so-called "proof" of evolution.

Actually, PE is the only real explanation of the fossil record.  Or do you have something better?  We'd love to hear it.

Both can't be true. That's why the battle between gradualists and punctuationists has gotten quite heated at times.

Oh no, both can be operative.  Most evolutionists believe in some combination of PE and gradualism.  Please show us how they are mutually exclusive, rather than just making assertions.

Whenever a Creationist or ID advocate presents scientific evidence supporting a Creator or designer, hordes of evos go on the attack in internet forums, periodicals etc.

Well that just shows how much the creationist opinion is in the minority. 

Don't try to deny it, you'll just make yourself look monumentally ignorant.

Actually, they are just trying to set the record straight.  It's all for your own benefit.

Look at ANY Creation-evolution or ID-evolution debate site on the internet---and you'll see virtually every evo arguing against God or a designer.

Actually, not true.  Many evolutionists are religious and readily accept a god.

If the evos allegedly have no problem with God, why do they bend over backward and argue ad nauseum on every tiny point in order to deny a God or designer? Why?

Actually, no.  They only deny creationism. Methinks you are just a bit sensitive on this.

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Since anyone who has been in this debate for more than a week and has been half-way paying attention will already be aware of the evidence, I will just post a link to a summary of the evidence. If you care, you can follow it. If this is all about who can shout the loudest, keep shouting, in bold font."

Jerry once again shows what appears to be the entire extent of his scientific knowledge---posting a link to talk.origins. Hardly an unbiased source. Gee, Jerry read it at talk.origins---so it MUST be true! *Sarcasm*

Here's an excellent expose of talk.orgins:

Talk.Origins Malarkey Exposed Here

Using bold font does not constitute shouting under the guidelines of computer etiquette. The ONLY thing that constitutes shouting is the over-use of CAPS in a post. I usually use bold when responding to multiple quotes from other posters, it's easier on the eyes because a reader can more readily distinguish my comments from other people's. Get over it.

"You pulled the "quote-mining" page right from the YEC play book, you say that you reject the evidence for an old earth, and you confuse the tempo of evolution with the fact of evolution. Does one need to be an expert on ducks to discern that the thing by the pond is doing too much quacking to be a goose?"

Oh, I see. So YEC's are the only ones to use quotes from their opponents! Of course, evos and OEC's have never quoted their opponents!

Gee, if one goes to talk.origins---they've got a pretty big "play book" of quotes on Hovind. By Jerry's illogic, I guess TO is now a bunch of YEC's! *Sarcasm*

Needless to say, Jerry's pathetic "argument" is shot down easily, both factually and logically.

"How presumptious of you to presume that a super-majority of those who do not deny evolution because of their delicate philosophical sensibilities are presumptious."

Virtually every one I've seen on the internet is presumptuous, like yourself. You know, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!

"Yet, instead of citing a name of such a person (who you and the "super-majority" of creationists are highly presumptious enough to make assumptions about their philosophy), you only cite one "evolutionist" who appears to believe the opposite of what you say."

Open your eyes and mind and take a look around the web, the number of atheist anti-Creationists is overwhelming. I'm not required to cite names, it's painfully obvious to anybody who isn't ignorant.

"That isn't good evidence for your claim that most "evos" believe that evolution disproves God."

Jerry's continued logical failure is rapidly approaching critical mass. Naming ONE evolutionist who doesn't feel it does, does absolutely nothing to disprove that most do! Jerry needs with his logic.

"Evolution has no priests. I think that is probably what you don't like about it."

What you think and 75 cents will get you a cup of coffee.

"Should we be suprised if that turned out to be the case? We tire of the canard as quickly as you do. Kindly leave off the quote-mining, and we could perhaps take the debate to a more substantial level."

I will use quotes from expert authority any time I wish. My quotes are far more accurate and revealing than anything you have posted. You're the one who desperately needs to raise your level on several counts, not just debate.

 

[Jerry Smith]

[Waits on answer to twice-posted question. Despairs of actually hearing one.]

I let the last post go since it was directed toward LC, and only mentioned my name tangentially.

Yet, I wonder if my last posts will be answered...

 

[Christian Soldier]

"Do you have something substantial to add to this debate or do you wish to continue name calling?"

I did not refer to them by any derogatory names in the quote from me that you cite, as you falsely allege. Your reading comprehension level is already suspect, as is your level of honesty.

As a johnny-come-lately to this debate, you have presented absolutely nothing substantial to the debate in your post, so your question best applies to yourself.

"Actually, PE is the only real explanation of the fossil record.  Or do you have something better?  We'd love to hear it."

Punk eek explains nothing, it cannot be scientifically verified. Since you are the newbie in this thread, and are making assertions---the burden of proof is clearly on you. Start explaining your untestable hypothesis.

Both can't be true. That's why the battle between gradualists and punctuationists has gotten quite heated at times.

"Oh no, both can be operative.  Most evolutionists believe in some combination of PE and gradualism.  Please show us how they are mutually exclusive, rather than just making assertions.

The burden of proof rests on you. Please explain how they can both be operative, rather than just making assertions.

"Well that just shows how much the creationist opinion is in the minority. "

Majority views are not always correct. The majority of trained biologists in Nazi Germany were Nazi party members. So much for majorities.

"Actually, they are just trying to set the record straight.  It's all for your own benefit."

Actually, I've set them straight. I've clearly shown that the fossil record offers grossly inadequate evidence to "prove" evolution. Get over it.

"Actually, not true.  Many evolutionists are religious and readily accept a god."

Please provide solid evidence for your baseless assertion. I can back my assertion easily---go to any creation-evolution debate site or skeptic site and count the overwhelming number of evos posting arguments against God. Often their screennames are even anti-God.

"Actually, no.  They only deny creationism. Methinks you are just a bit sensitive on this."

Your statement, like virtually all of your post---is poppycock. Methinks you are in a severe state of denial, quite common among evolutionists.

You have presented no substantive information. Please start providing some solid evidence for a change.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Man, looks like CF got another Nick - only without his quirky, annoying sense of humor!

 

[chickenman]

Please provide solid evidence for your baseless assertion. I can back my assertion easily---go to any creation-evolution debate site

if you think these sites are representative of scientists as a whole then you're mistaken. Most scientists couldn't be bothered wasting their time vindicating a theory thats already widely accepted in the scientific community to a bunch of creationists who have little or no scientific education. (or they aren't even aware of the existence of "creation science")

Actually, I've set them straight. I've clearly shown that the fossil record offers grossly inadequate evidence to "prove" evolution. Get over it.

no-one ever said the fossil record "proved" evolution. Just that it supports the theories major predictions. You haven't been able to refute that.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Christian Soldier
Needless to say, Jerry's pathetic "argument" is shot down easily, both factually and logically.

Get used to it. It's the norm.