Darwinian Evolution's Achilles Heel: The Fossil Record
adman
from Christian fundamentalists but rather paleontologists. Surely if Darwin
was correct we would see a clear fossil record demonstrating evolution, no?
He thought one would see "interminable varieties, connecting together all
the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." He
knew that the fossil record was "perhaps the most obvious and serious
objection" to his theory but figured that with more time and exploration,
the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the
record still opposes evolution. The verdict is in. One branch of science
contradicts another.According to the fossil record, 500 million years ago
there was a Cambrian explosion of life that lasted merely 5-10 million years
at maximum (a paltry duration considering geologic and evolutionary
timetables) in which new species of animals suddenly appear fully formed,
remain largely unchanged for millions of years, and then some disappear.
Nearly all the animal phyla we know of today emerged then. (e.g. The oldest
bat fossils show bats fully formed, capable of both flight and sonar, two
relatively complex mechanisms.) There is no gradual change from one life
form to another as one would expect according to Darwin's theory. In fact,
there are fewer examples of evolutionary transitions now than in Darwin's
time (classic cases such as the evolution of horses, Archaeopteryx, etc.
have had to be discarded as new information has come to light). Transitional
animals are an "extreme rarity" according to the late renowned Harvard
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (evolution believer). Moreover, the fact
that many organisms from the Cambrian explosion went extinct suggests that
there was more diversity then than now. This turns Darwin's bottom-up "tree
of life" paradigm (from simple to more complex and diverse over time) on its
head.
(Some have suggested that perhaps pre-Cambrian organisms just didn't
fossilize because they were too soft and/or small. But we do actually have
fossils of soft-bodied and microscopic organisms, including worms, sponges,
and bacteria!)
Punctuated equilibrium (evolution can happen really fast by mutation) is
merely a non-theological miracle, a theory of evolution that abandons Darwin
in order to conform to the fossil record and that is more reminiscent of the
story of Genesis. This theory strains credibility when we realize that the
vast majority of mutations are harmful and undermine survival, if not
neutral (e.g. Downs Syndrome, cancer, congenital disorders, etc.) and that
the window of time for mutation and natural selection to create all the
diversity we know today and then some is very short, only 5-10 million years
at most
now THAT seems to be EOD on THIS matter!
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
You need to copy your work from people who aren't failing the course.
Wombat
Why, O contemptible little weasel, do you always manage to shoot
yourself in the foot by quoting from those who lie for Jusus?
Wombat
Augray
>When Darwin first proposed his theory, the most strident opposition came not
>from Christian fundamentalists but rather paleontologists. Surely if Darwin
>was correct we would see a clear fossil record demonstrating evolution, no?
>He thought one would see "interminable varieties, connecting together all
>the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." He
>knew that the fossil record was "perhaps the most obvious and serious
>objection" to his theory but figured that with more time and exploration,
>the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the
>record still opposes evolution. The verdict is in. One branch of science
>contradicts another.According to the fossil record, 500 million years ago
>there was a Cambrian explosion of life that lasted merely 5-10 million years
>at maximum (a paltry duration considering geologic and evolutionary
>timetables) in which new species of animals suddenly appear fully formed,
>remain largely unchanged for millions of years, and then some disappear.
>Nearly all the animal phyla we know of today emerged then. (e.g. The oldest
>bat fossils show bats fully formed, capable of both flight and sonar, two
>relatively complex mechanisms.)
Bats are not a phyla. And the earliest known bat did not have sonar.
>There is no gradual change from one life
>form to another as one would expect according to Darwin's theory. In fact,
>there are fewer examples of evolutionary transitions now than in Darwin's
>time (classic cases such as the evolution of horses, Archaeopteryx, etc.
>have had to be discarded as new information has come to light).
Archaeopteryx has *not* been discarded, and neither has the horse
series.
>Transitional
>animals are an "extreme rarity" according to the late renowned Harvard
>paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould (evolution believer).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html#quote3.2
>Moreover, the fact
>that many organisms from the Cambrian explosion went extinct suggests that
>there was more diversity then than now. This turns Darwin's bottom-up "tree
>of life" paradigm (from simple to more complex and diverse over time) on its
>head.
That really depends on how one measures diversity. But considering
that there were no land-dwelling creatures in the Cambrian, I'd have
to say that it's a false claim.
>(Some have suggested that perhaps pre-Cambrian organisms just didn't
>fossilize because they were too soft and/or small. But we do actually have
>fossils of soft-bodied and microscopic organisms, including worms, sponges,
>and bacteria!)
>
>Punctuated equilibrium (evolution can happen really fast by mutation) is
>merely a non-theological miracle, a theory of evolution that abandons Darwin
>in order to conform to the fossil record and that is more reminiscent of the
>story of Genesis.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -
whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting
that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but
are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, S. J. 1983. Evolution as Fact and Theory. In "Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes". New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
>This theory strains credibility when we realize that the
>vast majority of mutations are harmful and undermine survival, if not
>neutral (e.g. Downs Syndrome, cancer, congenital disorders, etc.) and that
>the window of time for mutation and natural selection to create all the
>diversity we know today and then some is very short, only 5-10 million years
>at most
The consensus is that life has been evolving for a couple of billion
years, not 5 to 10 million,
>now THAT seems to be EOD on THIS matter!
>
>http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/darwinian-evolution%e2%80%99s-achilles-heel-the-fossil-record/
Check out
http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/category/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design/
where the writer says that "I'm more inclined to think evolution is a
sound theory now."
adman
ooops! he also says "The natural process of evolution need not contradict
the existence of God "
And THIS "
"It has not changed my belief that science should not be funded by the
government nor that there is a hostile, secular, aggressively anti-religious
bias within much of the scientific establishment and academia in general."
adman
Is everything that disagrees with you a lie? hardly
Was it not you that demanded an apology because you suposedly stay out of
religious discussions?
pssst.. this is a religious discussion
Devils Advocaat
That's odd because it looks to me like a discussion on the merits or
failings of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, which
would make it a scientific discussion if I am not mistaken.
Cory Albrecht
> the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the
> record still opposes evolution. The verdict is in. One branch of science
Bzzt! Wrong. Darwin's Origin of the Species was published in 1859 and in
1860 the first Archeopteryx fossil was discovered.
Oh, and remember that rather long list of fossils I have given you on
multiple occasions?
Free clue: Some one's anti-science blog rant, full of bare, unsupported
assertions and at least one quote-mine, is not evidence against evolution.
Wombat
I once had a salad that disageed with me. It wasn't a lie; just off,
like you.
>
> Was it not you that demanded an apology because you suposedly stay out of
> religious discussions?
Your memory is, as usual, defective. I do not like being
misrepresented, that all. That you could not even admit you made a
mistake shows you only in your true colours, an arrant coward unable
to admit it.
>
> pssst.. this is a religious discussion
Look at the title, berk, it's about science.
I could not help but notice, O contemptible little weasel, that you
lack the balls to even begin to refute augray's refutation of the lies
you c&p'd.
Until you can get it into that thing in your head that passes for a
brain that your souces are lying, as Augray clearly pointed out, why
don't you sit in a corner and drool, as that should be well within
your capabilities, possibly.
Wombat
Augray
<Piyuk.19813$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> :
So what? I agree with that. And since you now seem to agree that
evolution doesn't contradict the existence of God, why do you have a
problem with evolution? Did you watch the embedded YouTube video?
>And THIS "
>"It has not changed my belief that science should not be funded by the
>government
So he doesn't care if the American economy goes down the tubes?
>nor that there is a hostile, secular, aggressively anti-religious
>bias within much of the scientific establishment and academia in general."
Yet he supplies no evidence for that claim.
Augray
<2nyuk.19815$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net> :
How does a discussion about the fossil record qualify as a religious
discussion?
Cory Albrecht
> bat fossils show bats fully formed, capable of both flight and sonar, two
> relatively complex mechanisms.) There is no gradual change from one life
First off, bats are not a phylum, as suggested by mentioning them right
after saying “Nearly all the animal phyla we know of today emerged then”
(yet another unsupported assertion). Chiroptera is an order, part of the
superorder Laurasiatheria which is part of the Infraorder Eutheria whoch
is part of the Order Mammalia whoch, finally, is part of the order Chordata.
One should get one's facts straight, no?
Also, the oldest known bat, Onychonycteris finneyi (described this past
February in Nature, Simmons, Nancy B. et al., "Primitive Early Eocene
bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation" Nature
451, 818-821 (14 February 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06549), was
apparently not able to echolocate. The size of its cochlea relative to
its skull is in the same range as modern, non-echolocating bats rather
than that of modern bats who do echo-locate. In addition, it’s earbones
are not shaped like modern echo-locating bats.
A very interesting thing is Onychonycteris’s limbs. Unlike modern bats
it has claws on all fingers whereas modern bats only have a claw on the
first finger (. This is significant enough to give the this fossil bat
it’s name - onycho-nycteris is Greek for "clawed bat".
Also, Onychonycteris’s lib ratios are very interesting. The ratios of
it’s fore-limbs to hind-libs is midway between modern bats and like
squirrels, sloths, siamangs and other tree-dwelling, non-flying mammals.
The bats with the closest limb-ratios and short wings are the
Mouse-tailed bats, the only modern bats that fly by alternately flapping
and gliding because their flapping is not as efficient as other bats.
Combine those limb ratios with the well developed claws and lack of
ability to echo-locate, what we haves is probably a poor flier but a
good climber that most likely spent most of it’s time finding food by
crawling about in the trees, only flying when it needed to get to
another tree. Rather different than the agile bats we know of today.
Yet another good transitional species.
TimK
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:rn8kb4t8jhehiedai...@4ax.com...
hehe good one!
adman
INCORRECT. as usual. I posted it to defend creationism
hint:
Evolution's Achilles Heel
adman
there are medications for obsessive compulsive disorders
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Wombat wrote:
But what you are selling is a lie. When you stop lying to us and to
yourself, you will see why you have caused your reputation to be one of
a liar who is unwilling to learn. Until then, you deserve nothing but
mockery.
>Was it not you that demanded an apology because you suposedly stay out of
>religious discussions?
>
>pssst.. this is a religious discussion
Science already showed that your religious claims are false.
adman
oh, you mean your baby-step science that cannot get anything right without
the need of revisions?
Augray
<mcEuk.19810$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
Ignoring for the moment that it's full of errors, in what way is it a
defense of creationism? Keep in mind that criticizing something is not
a defense of something else. For instance: criticizing communism is
not a defense of fascism.
Cory Albrecht
> Free Lunch wrote:
>> Science already showed that your religious claims are false.
>
> oh, you mean your baby-step science that cannot get anything right without
> the need of revisions?
Ah, once again you go bashing at revisions, yet you have yet to show why
changing your mind based upon the evidence is so bad.
Or are yo still confusing shoddy science journalism with science and
thinking that science claims it self to always be 100% correct?
Cory Albrecht
Nice ad hominem, Adman.
What, you couldn't find any evidence to support the bare assertions form
that silly blog?
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
Your worship unchanging error.
Learn how science works and stop making a fool of yourself.
Wombat
Hint, O contemptible little weasel, evolution and creationism are not
antonyms.
Also, I cannot help noticing that, yet again, you will not address the
refutations of the lies you got from your latest mates.
When will you realise that you cannot trust anyone that uses quote
mines.
If you ever post veifiable facts (small chance) you would be listened
to. While you lie, prevaricate, hurl insults and generally behave
like a six year old who can't have his way, you will be treated with
the contempt you so richly deserve.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap
Wombat
adman
it is all about the gaps <s> you got too many gaps.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>Cory Albrecht wrote:
Hogwash.
We have evidence from every single living organism on earth for common
ancestry.
Cory Albrecht
Lemme guess, you'd say "Oh, but now you have *two* missing links!' Right?
The thing is, you still haven't dealt with the transitional fossils that
are *not* missing.
Still waiting for you to show why Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and many
others are not transitional fossils.
adman
Where are the transitionals?
Something that clearly shows the divergence happening
Augray
<hOyvk.22927$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net> :
Archaeopteryx does, and so does Tiktaalik. What information do you
have that says otherwise?
Cory Albrecht
Those ones right there that you are trying o desperately to ignore.
adman
i made seperate posts on Archaeopteryx,Tiktaalik and horses.
Augray
<WcIvk.21596$kh2....@bignews3.bellsouth.net> :
And it was all shown to be garbage. When are you going to try to
understand that evolutionists actually *claim*, rather than rely on
creationist drivel?
Cory Albrecht
> Augray wrote:
>> Archaeopteryx does, and so does Tiktaalik. What information do you
>> have that says otherwise?
>
> i made seperate posts on Archaeopteryx,Tiktaalik and horses.
I saw the Tiktaalik and pointed out a whole bunch of your errors
(transitional tetrapods in the Cretaceous??) and generally did to it
what I did to your hypothesis that the ice caps provided the water for
the flood.
I have not, however, seen similar posts on horse or Archeopteryx. Can
you give me googlegroup links so I know what to look for in my spool? TIA.