INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 174
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#521 Postby Pahu » May 17th, 2017, 3:33 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

[quote author=Pahu link=topic=49433.msg1695940#msg1695940 date=1495031530]
Fossil Gaps 1



If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, [i]The Origin of Species, p. 163.

[i] “...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] [i] truly be enormous. Why then 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 most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].”  Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
[/quote]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17799
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#522 Postby Dave B » May 17th, 2017, 9:11 pm

Still cutting, pasting and propagating the same old same old without managing to enter debate I see, Pahu.

Nice to know some things stay the same when you take a spell away. But, ultimately, boring.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 174
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#523 Postby Pahu » May 24th, 2017, 8:38 pm

Fossil Gaps 2



The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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 a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” [i] Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

[i] “In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

[i] “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” [i]Science,
Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 20905
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#524 Postby Alan H » May 24th, 2017, 9:58 pm

Uh oh! Non sequitur alert...
Alan Henness

"We're all in this together, but some are more in it than others."
— Me, with apologies to Napoleon

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 578
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#525 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » Yesterday, 7:50 pm

Another snippet from Brown's stop-frame Gish Gallop, I see.

This has been dealt with years ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.


If you prefer something a bit more jazzy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwBWvVLlC2g
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 174
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#526 Postby Pahu » Yesterday, 8:24 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:Another snippet from Brown's stop-frame Gish Gallop, I see.

This has been dealt with years ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


The problem here is the use of the word "transitional", the adjectival form of "transition"

transition: Passage from one form, state, style, or place to another.
Transitional fossil definition on the free online dictionary

The use of the word "transitional" implies an ancestor / descendant relationship. If evolutionists do not mean it that way, then it is they that are redefining "transitional". Certainly when the average person hears the term "transitional form" they think ancestor / descendant, not simply a mosaic of different types. It also implies individual body parts in transition from one to the other. It seems that evolutionists are playing word games that make evolution theory seem stronger than it really is.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.


However these gaps tend to show up in patterns predicted by a creation model.

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_fo ... lk.Origins)
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 578
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#527 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » Yesterday, 9:14 pm

Pahu wrote:The use of the word "transitional" implies an ancestor / descendant relationship. If evolutionists do not mean it that way, then it is they that are redefining "transitional". Certainly when the average person hears the term "transitional form" they think ancestor / descendant, not simply a mosaic of different types. It also implies individual body parts in transition from one to the other. It seems that evolutionists are playing word games that make evolution theory seem stronger than it really is.


Sorry, Pahu, but that really won't do. You are creating another strawman here. If you want to know the meaning of any technical term, you must not assume that you can infer it from some non-technical usage. If you happen to have a scientific or medical or legal or indeed any other technical dictionary on your bookshelves, and you take the trouble, you can check this for yourself. You will find everyday terms that have been pressed into technical service.

However these gaps tend to show up in patterns predicted by a creation model.


Well, if you can find any peer-reviewed scientific papers explaining the model, deriving the patterns and setting out the corroboration obtained in scientific testing, you will be doing better than you have done so far. And no: creationist vanity-publishing doesn't count.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest