Religion Creation vs. Darwin's MacroEvolution Myth

[Roylion]

The fossil record contradicts macroevolution theory because it shows nothing but gaps.

That's not correct either. Shows "nothing but gaps"? There's plenty of transitional fossils that have been found. Want a partial list?

I can give you specific examples of transitional fossils for Invertebrate to Vertebrate, Jawless fish to jawed Vertebrate, Acanthodian to shark, primitive jawed fish to bony fish, fish to amphibian, primitive to modern amphibians, amphibian to reptile, early reptile to diapsid, Early diapsid to turtle, Early synapsid to mammal, dinosaur to bird, Transitional mammalian fossils (Primates) and Non-human primate to human if you like.

Let me give you an example. The fossils of Creature D would be claimed by an evolutionist to have evolved from Creature A (an earlier version of Creature D) simply because the two fossils show a few similarities. But there are no transitional fossils showing how the change from Creature A to Creature D occurred. That is, there are no fossils of Creature B and Creature C (which are the transitions from A to D).

Each transitional find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to the knowledge of evolutionary transitions.

For example those that oppose evolution will simply claim that there is another so-called "missing link" even when a "missing link" was found. Let's just say that modern humans are Human 2.0 and some early form of "humans" is called Human 1.0. Evolution denialists would claim that we need to find the missing link of Human 1.5. If Human 1.5 is discovered, that creates two new missing links, Human 1.25 and Human 1.75 that evolution denialists would say need to be discovered. If those two missing links are discovered, then the four new missing links Human 1.125, Human 1.375, Human 1.625 and Human 1.875 would need to be discovered. And so on. The only way to satisfy evolution denialists would be to have a record of all "humans" or even all life that has ever existed. Even if every fossil organism were discovered and categorized, there would still be "missing links" because likelihood that bones become fossilized is very rare since fossilization requires a very specific set of geological conditions

Below are samples of admissions by paleontologists who searched in vain for connections between fossils of one creature and its supposedly evolved version.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

Dear oh dear. Quote mining at its best. Here's the full text from the bottom of page 1..

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration: the growing number of species of Formaminifera that remain undescribed in the cabinets of the oil companies probably is of the order of thousands; and while most other organic groups are not so fully collected the ratio of added finds to palaeontologists studying them is constantly expanding. But what remains to be discovered is likely to be of less and less radical importance in revealing major novelties, more and more of detailed infilling of fossil series whose outlines are known. The main phyla, in so far as they are represented by fossils, now have a long and full history that is made three-dimensional by a repeatedly cladal phylogeny. The gaps are being closed not only by major annectant forms, the "missing links" that Darwin so deplored, like the fish-amphibian ichthyostegids, the amphibian-reptile seymouriamorphs, and the reptile-mammal ictidosaurs, but also by new discoveries of phyletic affiliations, as in graptolite structure."

Note the last sentence. I've underlined it for you. Search "in vain"?

So we see that when Neville is claiming that "In some ways it [the fossil record] has become almost unmanageably rich..." he's referring to particular groups of creatures. By this point there should be no doubt that Neville advocates evolution.

"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 gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

In this paper, Kitts outlines several different hypotheses as to why the fossil record appears the way it does, among them Punctuated Equilibrium, but at no point does he abandon evolution as an explanation for what is seen.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

Notice that George Neville, in 1960, made it clear that the fossil record had become "almost unmanageably rich." In other words, the problem was not a lack of fossils. Instead, there was a lack of connection between the fossils. Neville said the record "continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Twenty years later, in 1980, Stephen Gould confirmed Neville's findings. He admitted there were no transitions between major groups of creatures. And guess what, nothing has changed, and we are now in 2017.

Interesting that you're now quoting Stephen Gould who was a proud Darwinist and who devoted considerable time to fighting against creationism, creation science and intelligent design. Gould of course argued for "punctuated equilbrium". Gould did not doubt the fact of evolution. Yet you quote him anyway.

"..Yet amidst all this turmoil No biologist has been lead to doubt the Fact that evolution occurred; we are debating How it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy.

Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by Falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.

The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters."

Stephen Jay Gould. (1994)
http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/evolution_as_fact_and_theory.html

The other mistaken idea that you have is that the fossil record is the only type of evidence which can establish a connection between different life forms. Palaeontology is only one field of study in this erea. Comparative study of DNA since the elucidation of its structure is just one of the remarkable new lines of investigation.

 

[M Malice]

I don't think the evolution deniers can quite grasp the amount of time the evolution process takes and with an infinite universe how many chances life has had to emerge. Life is inevitable given the length of time and the unlimited number of natural petri dish's in the universe.

 

[madmug]

I don't think the evolution deniers can quite grasp the amount of time the evolution process takes and with an infinite universe how many chances life has had to emerge. Life is inevitable given the length of time and the unlimited number of natural petri dish's in the universe.

Yes they can. Its all happened in the last 6000 years or so.

 

[RupieDupie]

RupieDupie:

The fossil record contradicts macroevolution theory because it shows nothing but gaps.

Let me give you an example. The fossils of Creature D would be claimed by an evolutionist to have evolved from Creature A (an earlier version of Creature D) simply because the two fossils show a few similarities. But there are no transitional fossils showing how the change from Creature A to Creature D occurred. That is, there are no fossils of Creature B and Creature C (which are the transitions from A to D).

Below are samples of admissions by paleontologists who searched in vain for connections between fossils of one creature and its supposedly evolved version.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"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 gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

Notice that George Neville, in 1960, made it clear that the fossil record had become "almost unmanageably rich." In other words, the problem was not a lack of fossils. Instead, there was a lack of connection between the fossils. Neville said the record "continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Twenty years later, in 1980, Stephen Gould confirmed Neville's findings. He admitted there were no transitions between major groups of creatures. And guess what, nothing has changed, and we are now in 2017.


NeutralZone

Stephen Jay Gould is not contradicting macroevolution, only phyletic gradualism, Stephen Jay Gould along with Niles Eldredge published a paper on macroevolution and postulated a macroevolutionary process now known as punctuated equilibrium, Gould looked at snails and Eldredge at trilobites and both found transitional forms. As part of their interpretation they noted the fossil record is characterised (morphologically) by stasis with punctuated change as opposed to long periods of gradual change with short periods of stasis.

With DNA, which you have not addressed above, we find that DNA sequences of some organisms (humans and chimpanzee) are more similar to each other than they are to other organisms (mouse), just like your DNA sequence is more close to your parents than it is to me, but even though we are not immediately related we do share a common ancestor, even if there is no evidence that this common ancestor existed (Crom!). Thus, a chimpanzee and human with their relatively more similar DNA sequences share a more recent common ancestor than the two do with a mouse, even though this recent and more ancient common ancestors have now perished.

Interestingly, once a person goes back far enough in the geological record fossil mice (mus), humans (Homo), and Chimpanzee (Pan) disappear yet are replaced by similar fossils with "primitive" characteristics...

 

[Long Live HFC]

Creationists could well be right.

you clearly haven't looked at any ID/creationist literature.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Long Live HFC:

Insulting me is hardly going to change the fact that according to evolution theory, "modern" humans and apes supposedly evolved from the same ape-like ancestor.

i insulted you because you deserved it. your OP was categorically incorrect and displayed wanton ignorance. then here, you try to save face by copy-pasting things i already know. good job

 

[Long Live HFC]

But there are no transitional fossils showing how the change from Creature A to Creature D occurred.

There isn’t a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count – trillions if you include microfossils. These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians, for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13717-evolution-myths-yet-more-misconceptions/

my money's on appalling ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

 

[madmug]

i insulted you because you deserved it. your OP was categorically incorrect and displayed wanton ignorance. then here, you try to save face by copy-pasting things i already know. good job

Its just an unfortunate 'trait' of the rusted on happy clappers. They are so brainwashed by belief, they cannot see the trees for the woods. No one with 1/2 a brain cell can argue the earth is not billions of years old. We get 'beliefs' they the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, based on what?. Beliefs that say the creation took 6 days, why not in an instance?

Other belief systems have a far different view of creation, thats why Muslims & Christians have killed so many peaceful people who have different views over 2 millennium.

As science discovers more & more, the happy clappers have changed so many of their hard defended beliefs, they now agree earth goes around the Sun etc.
Sure, have your beliefs but dont argue with, or try to discredit science ,unless you have at least some facts to put on the table.

Certainly dont inflict your religiocultural rantings on others.

 

[Admiral Byng]

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"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 gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

You need to get a bit more up to date than quotes from 1960s-1970s. There have been heaps of fossil discoveries made since then, a few highlights for you and not even an attempt at a comprehensive list. Your post is verging on nonsense to claim support that the evidence does not exist by using quotes which predate the discovery.

australopithecines, (the famous Lucy) found in 1974, since then another roughly half dozen species have been found
Turkana Boy (also called Nariokotome Boy) 1984

and so on up to the present day:

Denisovan hominids 2010
Homo naledi 2013

 

[Bennett.]

Don't the dminasi skulls screw all that up again?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Don't the dminasi skulls screw all that up again?

Like I said, it was not even an attempt at an exhaustive list.

In the sense that I was replying to the OP, no definitely not. In fact they do the opposite, they provide more information where previously there was a (perceived) gap in our knowledge. For science it means re-shuffling the order of things when presented with new evidence - not starting over again. But every major new fossil find does that to some extent. New fossil discoveries don't disprove evolution, they are further evidence it happened.

But I guess from a certain point of view every time you plug a gap in our knowledge with a new discovery it just creates two gaps where previously there was only one. So I guess people like the OP will never be satisfied.

 

[RupieDupie]

Don't the dminasi skulls screw all that up again?

How?

 

[skilts]

How?

And a big hello to our American Indian brother.

 

[RupieDupie]

And a big hello to our American Indian brother.

But I'm not a Native American... oh wait I see what you have done there!

If I had asked How so? I would have been a Chinese brother and if I had asked How come? I would have been a brother who studies spermatogenesis.

 

[chelseacarlton]

It would appear we have our very own Wendy Wright in here as the OP,albeit slightly more informed,slightly!
I shall refrain from posting her "show me the evidence","ad hominem","critical factories" vids on this occasion.

 

[katana]

Science is full of we don't know yet. That's science.

ought children to be taught a 'we don't know yet story' in their school system? the reality is that the average person relates to evolution as a foregone, proven conclusion. they don't respect the nuance that it is just a theory. evolution functions in the mind of the average person as doctrine exactly as a religion would.

 

[Admiral Byng]

ought children to be taught a 'we don't know yet story' in their school system? the reality is that the average person relates to evolution as a foregone, proven conclusion. they don't respect the nuance that it is just a theory. evolution functions in the mind of the average person as doctrine exactly as a religion would.

You don't understand what a scientific theory is. A theory is not just a guess, it is a much higher rank than that. Things don't become "just a theory" they have to earn that rank.

A theory is an explanation for a set of facts, how those facts came about. Theories are by definition based on facts. There is little practical difference between teaching a theory as fact or teaching the facts about a theory, they lead to the same learning outcome.

 

[chelseacarlton]

ought children to be taught a 'we don't know yet story' in their school system? the reality is that the average person relates to evolution as a foregone, proven conclusion. they don't respect the nuance that it is just a theory. evolution functions in the mind of the average person as doctrine exactly as a religion would.

Here we go again!
The term "theory" when used in the context of science is very different to its use outside of the scientific realm.
Look it up,understand it,then come back to us!
Btw,evolution is a foregone conclusion,it's a fact!
It is nothing like the doctrine's or holy books you seem to favour.
FMD,some people with their pathetic long ago debunked arguments,see no,hear no,speak no bullshite!

 

[Roylion]

ought children to be taught a 'we don't know yet story' in their school system? .

Are you suggesting that 'scientific theories' and 'scientific facts' should not be taught in science classrooms? Because that's what evolution is. It exists as a scientific fact and the proposed model of evolution exists as 'scientific theory'.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation and/or model of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.

Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. For example the "theory of evolution" refers to a particular model of evolution and not that evolution does not happen.

Scientists have extreme confidence that the scientific theory of evolution, (the model of evolution), is correct because every piece of empirical evidence (and there are multiple hundred of thousands of pieces across a variety of fields including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating, amongst others) collected thus far supports that theory / model.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement / hypothesis / theory is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement / hypothesis in question.

Evolution is based on three main principles: variation, heritability and selection. Given these three principles have all been observed to be true, evolution must occur. If any of these were shown to be flawed then the theory would be untenable.

Consequently any of the following would falsify the theory:

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.

Common descent could also easily be falsified if there was discovered a form of life that was not related to all the life we know - most simply, by finding life that does not use the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) for information storage and retrieval as known biological life does.

No piece of evidence of the hundreds of thousands of pieces of empirical evidence (at the very least), found so far has falsified the scientific theory.

And the term "scientific theory" relates to the model of evolution, and NOT whether evolution is fact or not.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Scientists themselves most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists also use scientific fact to mean something that has been tested and/or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples (even though this continues so that the "model" of evolution can continued to be refined/improved). So the occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the supporting evidence is so overwhelming. There has not been one piece of scientific evidence from the many hundreds of thousands pieces collected so far (and this number continues to be added to) that has falsified evolution.

Evolution is so firmly supported by the myriad pieces of collected evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true.

The reality is that the average person relates to evolution as a foregone, proven conclusion. they don't respect the nuance that it is just a theory.

Then it's clear they don't understand the term "scientific theory".

Do you? If not see above.

evolution functions in the mind of the average person as doctrine exactly as a religion would.

Except that evolution is actually supported by (at the very least) hundreds of thousands (and some scientists are now talking in the millions) of pieces of empirical evidence. Not one piece of evidence has falsified evolution - either the fact of it or the model of evolution (which is the 'scientific theory').

 

[Bennett.]

Here we go again!
The term "theory" when used in the context of science is very different to its use outside of the scientific realm.
Look it up,understand it,then come back to us!
Btw,evolution is a foregone conclusion,it's a fact!
It is nothing like the doctrine's or holy books you seem to favour.
FMD,some people with their pathetic long ago debunked arguments,see no,hear no,speak no bullshite!

There is still room for subjectiveness is scientific theory also, and often times scientific theory is superseded by a new theory.
So we believe science gives us facts. We're taught them and told they are truth only to be told 20 years later that some theory was actually wrong and we at given a new truth.

I wouldn't be putting all my eggs in the "scientific theory" basket.

 

[Roylion]

There is still room for subjectiveness is scientific theory also, and often times scientific theory is superseded by a new theory.
So we believe science gives us facts. We're taught them and told they are truth only to be told 20 years later that some theory was actually wrong and we at given a new truth.

I wouldn't be putting all my eggs in the "scientific theory" basket.

I've already explained the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific fact. It has been observed and tested so many times that it is considered fact.

The model of evolution is 'scientific theory'. The model is adjusted in the light of new evidence being discovered or new observations. Adjusting / tweaking the model does not falsify evolution as a fact.

No piece of evidence ever discovered, across a variety of fields, including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating, amongst others has falsified evoluton. There is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples (even though this continues so that the "model" of evolution can continued to be refined/improved).

Perhaps we now should turn to a discussion of the robustness of available evidence there is for creation from an intelligent designer.

 

[Bennett.]

I've already explained the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Evolution is a scientific fact. It has been observed and tested so many times that it is considered fact.

The model of evolution is 'scientific theory'. The model is adjusted in the light of new evidence being discovered or new observations. Adjusting / tweaking the model does not falsify evolution as a fact.

No piece of evidence ever discovered, across a variety of fields, including biochemisty, comparative anatomy, bio-geography, comparative embryology, molecular biology, palaeontology and radioisotope dating, amongst others has falsified evoluton. There is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples (even though this continues so that the "model" of evolution can continued to be refined/improved).

Perhaps we now should turn to a discussion of the robustness of available evidence there is for creation from an intelligent designer.

Show me macroevolution in practise and then we can talk about theory and fact.

 

[LFTWNG11]

Show me macroevolution in practise and then we can talk about theory and fact.

Comments like these from creationist are why they are mocked. How about you go out and actually look for the theory and facts yourself instead inciting people to do the work for you? You want to be hand fed information only to then retort it with some ancient script that has no empirical evidence to support it. If you don't understand the scientific method, have no desire to understand it and cannot debate with actual evidence/facts then stick to your Hillsong echo chamber

 

[cannot]

Comments like these from creationist are why they are mocked. How about you go out and actually look for the theory and facts yourself instead inciting people to do the work for you?

this a stupid statement

if you are so certain about your theories produced by the man had reproduced with his first cousin then present the evidence in question

 

[LFTWNG11]

this a stupid statement

if you are so certain about your theories produced by the man had reproduced with his first cousin then present the evidence in question

My statement is stupid? You can't form complete and coherent sentences