Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
paulie

An exhausting debate...

Recommended Posts

"Fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." Stephen Jay Gould

 

What is fact?

the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>

an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>

a piece of information presented as having objective reality

- in fact : in truth

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

 

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/05.16/99-gould.html

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4550_antievolutionism_and_creationi_2_13_2001.asp

Evolution

 

"Evolution" in its most basic sense is a simple idea: Change through time has taken place. The universe has a history: The present is different from the past. Physical and chemical evolution include the formation of elements in the nuclear blast furnaces of evolving stars, the formation of galaxies, and the formation of star systems with planets. The earth has changed greatly in the past four billion years: the present is different from the past.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency

Allele frequency is a term of population genetics that is used in characterizing the genetic diversity of a species population, or equivalently the richness of its gene pool. Allele frequency is defined as follows:

Given a) a particular chromosome locus, b) a gene occupying that locus, c) a population of individuals carrying n loci in each of their somatic cells (e.g. two loci in the cells of diploid species, which contain two sets of chromosomes) and finally d) a variant or allele of the gene, then the allele frequency of that allele is the fraction or percentage of loci that the allele occupies within the population.

[Evolution specifically in this discussion is the Change from one Species to another Species. It is obvious that changes in species over time has occurred, such as selective breeding of dogs. But this change is adaptation because the species has not changed to a new species. Dogs have not evolved in the sense they have changed species. Now let's look at forces affecting TIME]

 

 

The Laws Of Thermodynamics

Second Law Of Thermodynamics:

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics basically means that everything runs inexorably from order to disorder and from complexity to decay.

The theory of biological evolution directly contradicts the Law of Entropy in that it describes a universe in which things run from chaos to complexity and order. In evolution, atoms allegedly self-produce amino acids, amino acids auto-organize amoebas, amoebas turn into apes, and apes evolve into astronauts.

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

(Sir Arthur Edington, Mathematician and Physicist)

"Since the laws of thermodynamics remain unquestioned, we know the total amount of energy available to do work in the universe is not self-replenishing, but is running out. (We can assume that the total available energy in the universe is finite since current cosmological models suggest this state of affairs) Furthermore, we see that work is still being accomplished in the universe at this moment, which means we have not yet exhausted our finite supply of available energy, then the amount of time the universe has to exhaust its available energy is finite. But if the universe eternally existed, then an infinite amount of time has already passed. Infinite time would have consumed our universes finite time in the infinite past, there would not be enough time left in the finite time available to our universe to last through an infinite past. Since we are still here, the universe could not have had an eternal past. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and, thus, came into being."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

 

Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

 

[Now let's explore the fossil record for accuracy and transitional forms]

 

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

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing evolutionary theories. ...the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.", Evolution, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS, Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831

Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

 

The Fraud Of Ape-Men

 

Piltdown Man: (Eoanthropus dawsoni)

These fossils were "doctored," the skull was stained with chemicals, the teeth were filled with material to change their appearance, and there were also file marks for the same purpose. In 1953 it was formally announced a fake.

 

Peking Man:

It was conveniently discovered in China, just as Canadian physician Davidson Black was about to run out of funds for his evolutionary explorations in 1927.

The Rockefeller Foundation rewarded this discovery with a generous grant, permitting Black to continue digging. This find consisted off bashed monkey skulls and some tools. Monkey brains is a delicassey in some parts of the world. It turns out that Peking man was dinner.

Professor Marcellin Boule was angry, "at having traveled halfway around the world to see a battered monkey skull."

 

Nebraska Man:

In 1922, a single tooth was discovered in Nebraska. These experts said, "that it belonged to an ape-man." By the time the story hit a London newspaper, not only was there a picture of "Nebraska man" but there was also a picture of "Nebraska mom." All of this from a single tooth!

Some time later an identical tooth was found by geologist Harold Cook, this time it was connected to a skull, the skull was connected to a skeleton of a wild pig. How far will "science" go to "fit" fossils into their theory?

 

Java Man: (Pithecanthropus erectus) (Homo erectus)

Eugene Dubios found these bones on the Dutch island of Java in 1891, it consisted of a skullcap, femur, and three teeth. The femur was found 50 feet away from the skullcap a full year later. Dubios also found two human skulls (Wadjak skulls) in close proximity to the original "finds."

The Selenka expedition which included 19 evolutionists was sent to prove the validity of Java Man. Their 342 page report says, "beyond a peradventure of a doubt Java Man played no part in human evolution"

 

Heidelberg Man:

Built from a jawbone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

 

New Guinea Man:

Dates way back to 1970. This species has been found in the region just north of Australia.

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

 

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution,

By Steven E. Dill, D.V.M.

Copyright 1995, 1998 by Steven E. Dill)

http://www.bibleprobe.org/objection.html

It has been said that fossils provide the only historical evidence for evolution. This explains the evolutionists' fascination with fossils. However, the fossil record contradicts evolution.

Now, I would guess, you would want me to support my statement?

The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*) This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous. This answer was based on their definition of "transitional." To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later. After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species. This is the creationists' definition of "transitional." When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none. Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:

1. "There are myriad transitional forms. There's really no problem finding transitional forms."

versus his statement of:

2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts. It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."

 

Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:

1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."

versus his statement of:

2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete. It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."

Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:

(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)

1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago. And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."

versus his statement of:

2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."

 

The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils. Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils. Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution. Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms. Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.

"I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter:

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

In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.

 

http://evolution-facts.org/default.htm

 

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/mayr_punctuated.html

Evidently such a process is feasible, but its importance in evolution is contradicted by the fact that, among the millions of existing populations and species, mutations with large phenotypic effects would have to be exceedingly frequent to permit the survival of the occasional hopeful monster among the thousands of hopeless ones. But this in not found. Furthermore, enough mechanisms for the gradual acquisition of evolutionary novelties are known (Mayr, 1960) to make the occurrence of drastic mutations dispensable, at least as a normal evolutionary process.

 

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know.” Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

 

THE ACCIDENTAL CREATIONIST

Why Stephen Jay Gould is bad for evolution.

BY ROBERT WRIGHT

http://www.nonzero.org/newyorker.htm

 

All of this is more or less true. But it's also true that, over the years, Gould himself has lent real strength to the creationist movement. Not intentionally, of course. Gould's politics are secular left, the opposite of creationist politics, and his outrage toward creationists is genuine. Yet, in spite of this stance—and, oddly, in some ways because of it” he has wound up aiding and abetting their cause.

Misbehavior

How Stephen Jay Gould is wrong about evolution.

John Alcock

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.2/alcock.html

In reality, however, many evolutionists believe that Gould has exercised his considerable skills as an essayist to misinform the public about research in evolutionary biology. At regular intervals over 25 years, Gould has used Natural History as a forum for attacking human sociobiology, and, more broadly, the adaptationist or selectionist approach in evolutionary biology, because that methodology is the foundation for sociobiological investigation. Although Gould's polemical attacks have earned him public support as an "articulate (and rightly feared) enemy of sociobiological and hereditarian excesses,"1 His pronouncements on the adaptationist approach have been dissected and dismissed by a host of leading evolutionists.2 The vast majority of researchers currently interested in the possible adaptive value of the complex attributes, behavioral or otherwise, long ago put Gould's strictures aside and have carried on with their work, which has been remarkably productive.

Reflections on Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (1981):

JOHN B. CARROLL, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

A Retrospective Review in Intelligence 21, 121-134 (1995)

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/psychology/IQ/carroll-gould.html

First, a general remark: I must raise cautions about two of Gould's basic assumptions: (a) that the "urge to classify and rank people is strong" and somehow wrong, and (b) that scientists cannot be objective, because their findings reflect their surrounding culture and "the unconscious and very personal prejudices of the scientists themselves" (quoted from the dust jacket).

Regarding the first assumption, why it is wrong to attempt to classify and rank people is never made completely clear by Gould.

Concerning the second assumption, the idea that scientists cannot be objective is an old one, pursued by many philosophers and sociologists of science (e.g., Krasner & Houts, 1994; McMullin, 1988; Scheffler, 1967). Obviously there are many factors in scientists' selection of the things and issues they choose to study, and perhaps their personal wants, interests, and prejudices constitute some of these factors. However, having made those choices, there is no reason why they cannot be objective in their studies, in reporting independently verifiable observations, analyses, and findings. In particular, I object to Gould's tendency to visit the alleged sin s of early investigators on present day investigators. If Goddard, Brigham, and others once tended to view various human races as relatively superior or inferior in intelligence and therefore relatively worthy or unworthy, this does not mean that present-day investigators, like Jensen (1980) or Rushton (1995), are necessarily guilty of such views.

 

Stephen Jay Gould: An Appreciation

Clive Bradley

[from New Politics, vol. 9, no. 4 (new series),

whole no. 36, Winter 2004]

 

For Gould, a very great deal of natural history was the result of pure chance, contingent circumstance. At heart, here, I think there is a concern to see evolution as history, rather than an abstract model -- to identify and explain the actual shape of evolutionary history; in large part that Gould's sphere, palaeontology, is a historical science, accounts for this. Gould was impatient with explanations that focused only on one area of causality, and appealed -- in the spirit of Darwin, he often said -- for "pluralism."

 

Heredity or Environment ? An excerpt from David Duke's book "My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding"

http://www.prometheism.net/articles/duke_h_or_e.html

 

The scientific research on intelligence has silenced all but the most belligerent egalitarians. Unfortunately the mass media in America are still promoting the unscientific and discredited environmentalist views of fringe neo-Marxist and far-left elements such as R. C. Lewontin, Steven Rose, Stephen Jay Gould, and Leon Kamin. The media almost always fail to mention these men's political affiliations, such as Kamin's former position as New England editor of the U.S. Communist Party's weekly newspaper. Similarly ignored is Lewontin's pivotal role in the pro-Marxist, Vietnam era "Science for the People," and Gould's smug recounting of learning his Marxism on his father's knee. Much of the public is still largely unaware of the overwhelming scientific evidence showing the prominent role of genetics in determining human intelligence, but the scientific community has become aware of it. Snyderman and Rothman did extensive surveys of those scientists involved in psychological research and found that by the middle of the 1980s the vast majority believed that IQ was profoundly affected by heredity.

 

 

 

 

The Theory Of Evolution: The Great Myth

http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html

 

 

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT

EVOLUTION - 2

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol2.htm

There are scientists all over the world who know that evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Such men as *Charles Darwin, *Thomas and *Julian Huxley, and *Steven Jay Gould have admitted it. But you will not find these statements in the popular press. Such admissions are only made to fellow professionals.

An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist

 

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-332.htm

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism; the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.

 

It is interesting to note that even Darwin himself saw the insurmountable difficulties with his theory when considering, for example, the eye. Writing in his On the Origin of Species he says, "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." One of the leading modern evolutionists, Harvard Professor George G. Simpson, concurs, "The origin of such an organ as an eye, for example, entirely at random seems almost infinitely improbable" (This View of Life, 1964, p. 18) .

STEPHEN J. GOULD, HARVARD, "The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. ...not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion. So much for chordate uniqueness... Contrary to Darwin's expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event..." Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682

Preston Cloud & Martin F. Glaessner, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." Science, Aug.27, 1982

RICHARD Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ..."This is Genesis material," gushed one researcher. ...demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93

Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, "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. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ...the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN, John Repetski, U.S.Geol. Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian spore-genera are now on record...represent 6 different groups of vascular plants..." Evolution, V.13, 6/'59, p.264. Daniel I. Axelrod, UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years." [WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] Science, Vol.200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

PATCH FAILED, "Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing. But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland, in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world. ...just as the peculiar behavior of light forced physicists to conclude that Newton's laws were incomplete, so the Cambrian explosion has caused experts to wonder if the twin Darwinian imperatives of genetic variation and natural selection provide an adequate framework for understanding evolution..." Time, 12/4, 1995, p.67, 74

BLIND FAITH, Douglas Futuyma, "It is considered likely that all the animal phyla became distinct before or during the Cambrian, for they all appear fully formed, without intermediates connecting one form to another." EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY, 1985, p.325

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS" Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, "Our modern phyla represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard representatives of the most prominent phyla).", Natural History, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPRATE FOSSIL KINDS" Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the late Precambrian to Ordivician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing then.", Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS, Steven J. Gould, Harvard, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data 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

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT, R.H.Dott, U.of Wis. & R.L.Batten, Columbia, AMNH, "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest' forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the further removed they are from their common ancestor." EVOLUTION OF THE EARTH, p.602

Unrelated Look-Alikes, J.Z.Young, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "...similar features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy. Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments from those truly descended from each other." LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES, p.779

similarity IS NoT genetic, Sir Gavin Debeer, Prof. Embry., U.London, Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology Reader, p.16, Homology an Unsolved Problem

Significant Change Is Not Observed

BOTHERSOM distresS, STEPHEN J. Gould, Harvard , "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ....They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it." Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980.

"DESIGNS," S.J.Gould, Harvard, "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. ...I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record. ...we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it." Natural History, 2/82, p.2

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM, "...innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ...why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory". Origin of the Species.

MORE EMBARRASSING, David M. Raup, U. Chicago; Ch. F. Mus. of N. H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ....ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35

PREDICTION FAILED, Niles Eldridge, Amer. Mus. N. H., "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search.... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

TEXTBOOK DECEIT, GEORGE G. SIMPSON, "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature." LIFE OF THE PAST, p.119

THE HORSE "STORY", Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff." Harper's, p. 60, 1984.

TEXTBOOK HORSES, Bruce MacFadden, FL Museum of Natural History & U. of FL "...over the years fossil horses have been cited as a prime example of orthogenesis ["straight-line evolution"] ...it can no longer be considered a valid theory...we find that once a notion becomes part of accepted scientific knowledge, it is very difficult to modify or reject it" FOSSIL HORSES, 1994, p.27

STORY TIME OVER, Derek Ager, U.at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.", PROC. GEOL. ASSO., Vol.87, p.132

"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found....a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Nature, Vol.322, 1986 p.677

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." BIOLOGY &

COMPARATIVE PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS, Vol.1, p.1.

orders, classes, & phyla, George Gaylord Simpson, Harvard, "Gaps among known species are sporatic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", EVOLUTION OF LIFE, p.149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE, D.B. Kitts, U.of OK, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of genuinely historical knowledge.", Evolution, Vol.28, p. 467

NOT ONE! D.S. Woodroff, U.of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition." Science, Vol.208, 1980, p.716 STEPHEN M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U., "In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981, p.95

EVIDENCE-A MATTER OF FAITH, A.C. Seward, Cambridge, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize." Plant Life Through the Ages, p.561

"WE KNEW BETTER", Niles Eldredge, Columbia U., American Museum Of Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed “who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not.", TIME FRAMES, 1986, p.144

GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136

S. M. Stanley, Johns Hopkins "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them - in small, localized, transitory populations...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found." p.77, 110, New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981

Colin Patterson, B.M.N.H. "Well, it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of evidence." Darwin's EnigmA, p.100

 

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. Cornor, Cambridge "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the Theory of Evolution from Biology, Biogeography, and Paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT, p.61

Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "We conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body plans." Development As An Evolutionary Process, p.96, 1987.

 

THE NEW EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, 1981

NO VERTICAL CHANGE, NILES ELDRIDGE, Curator, American Museum Of Natural History, "The classic cases of living fossils reveal a more pervasive conservatism: there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ...Against them we might pit the mutability, the evolutionary changeability, of disease-causing and antibiotic-resistant staphylo-coccus bacteria, malaria pathogens, or the dreaded retroviruses (that cause AIDS and other horrid afflictions): in the short term, at least, evolutionary change in these microbes is extremely rapid. And so we ask: what underlies this great disparity of evolutionary rates?" FOSSILS, 1991, p.100

 

PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard , "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoans, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23

 

H.S. Ladd, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.II, p.7

 

http://www.halos.com/

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks the granites are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres or halos contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything in here that hasn't been debunked a hundred times before?

 

*yawn*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything in here that hasn't been debunked a hundred times before?

Sigh, if we don't do it, he will walk away thinking he proved a forum of "evolutionists" wrong. I agree with you, though.

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics basically means that everything runs inexorably from order to disorder and from complexity to decay.

The theory of biological evolution directly contradicts the Law of Entropy in that it describes a universe in which things run from chaos to complexity and order. In evolution' date=' atoms allegedly self-produce amino acids, amino acids auto-organize amoebas, amoebas turn into apes, and apes evolve into astronauts.

"If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."[/quote']

Evolution does not violate thermodynamics because an organism is not a closed system *yawn*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[u']The Fraud of the Apemen[/u]

Lots of these indeed are frauds, but how does this invalidate evolution? Hoaxes like the piltdown man were done as a cheap ploy to make money, knowing that public interest in such a thing would be very high. They were always discovered as fakes by scientists, who simply said, "we were mistaken, sorry" and washed their hands of it. Scientists are only human after all. And as far as I know, Homo heidelbergensis is not a hoax.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Its not just some claim; evolution is a fact. Its also a theory. "Evolutionists" decline debating with creationists for a lot of reasons. Creationists like Duane Gish are more charismatic than most scientists. Debating evolution is difficult becuase it is so complicated and hard to get across to laypeople in a limited amount of time. Creationists usually stock the audience with other creationists who aren't there to learn something; they are just there to hear the "blasphemous doctrine" of evolution take a beating by a smooth talker like Gish. If the situations were reversed, would you gladly go into debates with "evolutionists"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask again, if there is supposedly no evidence for evolution, then why are scientists still hanging on to it, and why am I sitting here defending it? Science is about describing the natural universe in the most accurate way possible. If a hypothesis doesn't stand up to testing (as you think evolution apparently didn't in the days of its inception) it is thrown out. Why does the scientific method make an exception for evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Evolutionists" decline debating with creationists for a lot of reasons. Creationists like Duane Gish are more charismatic than most scientists. Debating evolution is difficult becuase it is so complicated and hard to get across to laypeople in a limited amount of time. Creationists usually stock the audience with other creationists who aren't there to learn something; they are just there to hear the "blasphemous doctrine" of evolution take a beating by a smooth talker like Gish. If the situations were reversed, would you gladly go into debates with "evolutionists"?

 

 

Indeed. A problem with a debate format is the observers who are swayed not by factual argument, but by the charisma of the debater. It's one of the reasons that con men in general are able to make a buck, and why specifically you still find people able to sell investment shares in their perpetual motion machines despite the fact that the devices never seem to run forever (or indeed for very long) when hooked up to themselves. Facts simply don't dissuade some people - they can't be bothered to assess them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you argue against:

1) What you call "evolution" is really just "adaptation" and doesn't support common descent, or species generation?

2) Noted scientists, even Gould, have been quoted in their criticisms of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you argue against:

1) What you call "evolution" is really just "adaptation" and doesn't support common descent' date=' or species generation?

2) Noted scientists, even Gould, have been quoted in their criticisms of evolution.[/quote']

 

Easy. Evolution does support common descent, and speciation has been observed. Quoted criticism (especially when taken out of context) isn't evidence, it's argument from authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you argue against:

1) What you call "evolution" is really just "adaptation" and doesn't support common descent' date=' or species generation?

2) Noted scientists, even Gould, have been quoted in their criticisms of evolution.[/quote']

 

 

The theory isn't perfect, its changed a lot in the past 100 years. But its by far the best theory for the subject, since it works most of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, holy moses, hellbender with quad-post!

 

If there was no evolution then all animals stay exactly the way they are, then if species dies then no other animal can evolve to it's former niche, then there is a hole in the relationship among the species, then the envionment would be shot, and everything dies.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution[/url]']This is a NASA recreation of the famous Miller-Urey experiment. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sealed the chemical precursors to life in a closed environment, and subjected them to conditions similar to primordial earth. The results of the experiment suggest that the chemicals necessary for life did tend to arise under those circumstances, supporting the theories of Abiogenesis

 

 

There is a species that went extinct a long time ago, it is sometimes called a "beardog" I don't remember it's scientific name. Canines (dogs), felines (cats), ratcoons, bears, and other mammals all have very similar bone structure to this creature. Furthermore, the fossils of canines, felines... ect. that are older resemble this creature even more, and the older they are they resemble this beardog. There are millions of other examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll ask only that NO TOPICALITY OF ANY KIND BE RUN...EVER AGAIN

We know how to use a dictionary, unless you say the Earth is made of cheese, you dont need to provide a definition...we'll find out...I promise

Thanks so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And as far as I know, Homo heidelbergensis[/i'] is not a hoax.

 

 

You are correct.

Depending on whom you speak to(Lumper or Splitter), they can agree that Homo heidelbergensis is a part of the Archaic's.

 

The question that is debatable is can you lump Homo heidelbergensis into a subspecies of Homo sapiens(eg: Homo sapiens heidelbergensis), or keep it as is.

 

Their fossils are closely matched to ours, yet they are definently not h. sapiens(sapiens) as you and I are as they still exhibit some archaic features.

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their fossils are closely matched to ours, yet they are definently not h. sapiens(sapiens) as you and I are as they still exhibit some archaic features.

Yeah, its tough sometimes to determine this. I go by the splitter taxonomy becuase they are quite different, even though their brain capacity is well within the modern range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment you see "second law of themodynamics" in a discussion about evolution, you know the creationist does probably not hold the scientific knowledge to understand correctly evolution.

 

The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

 

That's probably the funniest argument against evolution...

 

1) What you call "evolution" is really just "adaptation" and doesn't support common descent, or species generation?

 

And what about molecular evolution ?

 

2) Noted scientists, even Gould, have been quoted in their criticisms of evolution.

 

Evolution is not a religion, we have the right to criticize it, the day science will became dogmatic, it'll die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution is not a religion, we have the right to criticize it, the day science will became dogmatic, it'll die.

 

Not only the right, but the duty - the system is based upon criticism. Peer review, as one example. Science isn't perfect, but it is ultimately self-correcting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.