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
Tetenterre
Posts: 3100
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#541 Postby Tetenterre » June 19th, 2017, 9:44 am

Latest post of the previous page:

And yet again, the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record is not a problem for evolution; finding something like an i-phone or a skeleton of homo sapiens in the Precambrian strata would constitute a problem.
Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5826
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#542 Postby animist » June 19th, 2017, 11:54 am

Tetenterre wrote:And yet again, the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record is not a problem for evolution; finding something like an i-phone or a skeleton of homo sapiens in the Precambrian strata would constitute a problem.
well, the latter examples would not just be a problem but a killer problem AFAIK (which is not very far). I am embarrassed at my inability to cope with a determined advocate, like Pahu, of the veracity of an ancient text (but not of course ancient texts in general, eg the Hindu creation myth, since these would simply confuse his picture) rather than the long-established acceptance by most religious people of the fact of human evolution. I will for now just "reiterate" (well, maybe, if I've said this before) that, to use the word "transitional" almost prejudges the issue. One only uses the word "transitional" if one is already committed to a concept which involves earlier and later, and thus transition. Pahu has already decided that he is not so committed, so I suppose that he is thus able to reject whatever examples of evolution we might present to him as not "truly" transitional

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#543 Postby Pahu » June 21st, 2017, 3:16 pm

Fossil Gaps 5



“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, [i]Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

[I] “...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.” Ibid., p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on June 21st, 2017, 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: <yawn>
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#544 Postby Pahu » June 28th, 2017, 2:40 pm

Fossil Gaps 6



“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.” Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, [i]Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.” Ibid., p. 266.

[i] “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[i] “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” [i]Natural History,
Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” Ibid., p. 12.

[i] “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” [i] Paleobiology,
Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.

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

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5826
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#545 Postby animist » June 30th, 2017, 10:01 am

animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:And yet again, the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record is not a problem for evolution; finding something like an i-phone or a skeleton of homo sapiens in the Precambrian strata would constitute a problem.
well, the latter examples would not just be a problem but a killer problem AFAIK (which is not very far). I am embarrassed at my inability to cope with a determined advocate, like Pahu, of the veracity of an ancient text (but not of course ancient texts in general, eg the Hindu creation myth, since these would simply confuse his picture) rather than the long-established acceptance by most religious people of the fact of human evolution. I will for now just "reiterate" (well, maybe, if I've said this before) that, to use the word "transitional" almost prejudges the issue. One only uses the word "transitional" if one is already committed to a concept which involves earlier and later, and thus transition. Pahu has already decided that he is not so committed, so I suppose that he is thus able to reject whatever examples of evolution we might present to him as not "truly" transitional
Pahu, how about commenting on this, rather than providing yet more Walt Brown quotes

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#546 Postby Pahu » June 30th, 2017, 2:45 pm

animist wrote:
animist wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:And yet again, the paucity of transitional forms in the fossil record is not a problem for evolution; finding something like an i-phone or a skeleton of homo sapiens in the Precambrian strata would constitute a problem.
well, the latter examples would not just be a problem but a killer problem AFAIK (which is not very far). I am embarrassed at my inability to cope with a determined advocate, like Pahu, of the veracity of an ancient text (but not of course ancient texts in general, eg the Hindu creation myth, since these would simply confuse his picture) rather than the long-established acceptance by most religious people of the fact of human evolution. I will for now just "reiterate" (well, maybe, if I've said this before) that, to use the word "transitional" almost prejudges the issue. One only uses the word "transitional" if one is already committed to a concept which involves earlier and later, and thus transition. Pahu has already decided that he is not so committed, so I suppose that he is thus able to reject whatever examples of evolution we might present to him as not "truly" transitional
Pahu, how about commenting on this, rather than providing yet more Walt Brown quotes


The quotes are the best commentary.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#547 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 1st, 2017, 12:41 am

Pahu wrote:[i] “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.



Pahu, you are going in circles. This has already been dealt with: you are indulging in quite disgraceful quote-mining.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

I have already provided a link to the text of Gould's piece.

You also said this:
The quotes are the best commentary.


Well, they are the best you've got.

How's that Ninth Commandment segashuating?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#548 Postby Pahu » July 1st, 2017, 3:34 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:[i] “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.



Pahu, you are going in circles. This has already been dealt with: you are indulging in quite disgraceful quote-mining.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

I have already provided a link to the text of Gould's piece.

You also said this:
The quotes are the best commentary.


Well, they are the best you've got.

How's that Ninth Commandment segashuating?


Are you suggesting I have given false evidence against my neighbor? If so, where?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5826
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#549 Postby animist » July 2nd, 2017, 10:20 pm

Pahu wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:How's that Ninth Commandment segashuating?


Are you suggesting I have given false evidence against my neighbor? If so, where?
I am going off topic here a bit, so apologies to both of you. But this seems a good occasion to actually examine the deficiencies of the so-called Word of God, the Bible, as a break from pettifogging complaints from Pahu about the evidence for evolution (and BTW, the most that creationists can claim is that science fails to prove evolution - it certainly does not disprove it).

I have always marvelled at the parochial nature of the Ten Commandments, and the 9th one is a case in point. It does not tell us that we should not lie, but instead tells us not to lie about our neighbour. This suggests the narrowly property-based concerns of whoever wrote these commandments. What is important is not the specific rule against lying against another person, eg in a court of law, but a much more general rule about lying - unless of course there is a really morally good reason to lie. Pahu, would you break the 9th commandment if you happened to live under the Nazis in Germany and were sheltering or otherwise aiding a Jewish family sought by the Gestapo?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#550 Postby Pahu » July 3rd, 2017, 3:12 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Lord Muck oGentry wrote:How's that Ninth Commandment segashuating?


Are you suggesting I have given false evidence against my neighbor? If so, where?
I am going off topic here a bit, so apologies to both of you. But this seems a good occasion to actually examine the deficiencies of the so-called Word of God, the Bible, as a break from pettifogging complaints from Pahu about the evidence for evolution (and BTW, the most that creationists can claim is that science fails to prove evolution - it certainly does not disprove it).

I have always marvelled at the parochial nature of the Ten Commandments, and the 9th one is a case in point. It does not tell us that we should not lie, but instead tells us not to lie about our neighbour. This suggests the narrowly property-based concerns of whoever wrote these commandments. What is important is not the specific rule against lying against another person, eg in a court of law, but a much more general rule about lying - unless of course there is a really morally good reason to lie. Pahu, would you break the 9th commandment if you happened to live under the Nazis in Germany and were sheltering or otherwise aiding a Jewish family sought by the Gestapo?


Good point. I would not be breaking the ninth commandment. Noice it says you shall not give false witness against your neighbor. If I were sheltering Jews from the Nazis, I would be bearing false witness for my neighbor. In the Bible Rahab was rewarded for lying about the Hebrews. Also, Jeramiah was rewarded with his life for lying. In neither case was the ninth commandment violated.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#551 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 3rd, 2017, 9:27 pm

Pahu wrote: Are you suggesting I have given false evidence against my neighbor?


You personally? I don't really know.

There are different types and degrees of culpability in the quote-mining business.
There are those who are directly involved in quote-mining. They need a set purpose and sustained effort to dig out the quotations and to excise the context to pervert the meaning. What they do cannot be excused as the product of inattention or sloppiness. It is brazen lying.

Then there are the mined quotes that do the rounds in creationist literature. One creationist borrows uncritically from another. Now, that might be excused as bad, lazy scholarship rather than lying of set purpose. Hardly venial, but not the worst of offences.

And there are those who hand out pamphlets or spam discussion forums with creationist tropes. It doesn't matter very much whether they understand what they are broadcasting and what is wrong with it. Indeed, it doesn't much matter whether they wish to make the effort to understand. They just hand the stuff out. It is irresponsible but, again, it is not the worst of offences.

I hope, Pahu, that you are the bottom of the list rather than the top.



Now, I notice that you are still touting stuff quote-mined from Gould. I recommend this as a remedy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quoting_out_of_context

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in his famous 1973 essay "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution":

Their [Creationists'] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.


And this:
Both AiG and ICR use the following quote from Stephen Jay Gould on intermediate forms.

The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.
— Stephen Jay Gould



Context shows that Gould rejected the gradualists' explanation for the lack of support for gradual change in favor of his own interpretation. He continues:

... Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. Although I reject this argument (for reasons discussed in ["The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change"]), let us grant the traditional escape and ask a different question.

Knowing that creationists are quoting him as if he were saying there were no transitional forms, Gould responded:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria 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. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.


How many times must we go over this?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5826
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#552 Postby animist » July 4th, 2017, 9:27 am

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote: have always marvelled at the parochial nature of the Ten Commandments, and the 9th one is a case in point. It does not tell us that we should not lie, but instead tells us not to lie about our neighbour. This suggests the narrowly property-based concerns of whoever wrote these commandments. What is important is not the specific rule against lying against another person, eg in a court of law, but a much more general rule about lying - unless of course there is a really morally good reason to lie. Pahu, would you break the 9th commandment if you happened to live under the Nazis in Germany and were sheltering or otherwise aiding a Jewish family sought by the Gestapo?


Good point. I would not be breaking the ninth commandment. Noice it says you shall not give false witness against your neighbor. If I were sheltering Jews from the Nazis, I would be bearing false witness for my neighbor. In the Bible Rahab was rewarded for lying about the Hebrews. Also, Jeramiah was rewarded with his life for lying. In neither case was the ninth commandment violated.
actually I think your answer is very good. I asked this question concerning an important ethical dilemma partly because I used to be (as the honorary atheist!) on an evangelical Christian forum, and I asked the others this question. Most of them fudged and/or said that in protecting an innocent person by lying they were committing a sin for which they would need God's forgiveness. Your response makes more sense to me

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#553 Postby Pahu » July 6th, 2017, 2:53 pm

Fossil Gaps 7



In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” [i]Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Last edited by Alan H on July 6th, 2017, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Ho hum.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#554 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 6th, 2017, 9:15 pm

Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 7



In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” [i]Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


Here we go again, Pahu.

Although it is your job to provide a link to the full text, you have not done so. Both the Manchester Guardian and The Washington Post Weekly archives require subscription to view articles, so I am not going to do your job for you.
The Quote Mine Project, however, casts some light on the matter:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-3.html
Quote #52

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

The complete paragraph:

The evidence against the standard view is contained in a lack of evidence. If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. The alternative theory is called (regrettably) "punctuated equilibrium" or "punctuationalism." According to this, the diversity of life has come about as a result of sporadic adaptations by small, well-defined groups confronted by a new environment, interspersed with long periods of little or no change.

Once again, Punctuated Equilibrium is being discussed, and it is Gradualism, and not evolution, which is being critiqued. But one has to wonder why the quote-miner didn't include the last sentence of the article as well:

What is extraordinary is that in the 120 years since Darwin appeared to have cracked the problem with elegant neatness in "The Origin of Species," the principle has withstood all attacks on it - and yet still evolves loose ends.


First, we note that Brown used three ellipses. If what we see above is the whole paragraph, Brown stitched together sentences from different paragraphs.

Second, we seem to be getting the words of a reporter, not the words of Eldredge himself.

But let us set that aside and ask what exactly is being said. As the phrase " little by little" suggests, the point is not the absence of transitional forms but the size of the gaps between them. Eldredge favours PE rather than Gradualism as an explanation for this.

Now, anyone with a passing acquaintance with Gould and Eldredge's ideas about PE could have told you that.

Pahu, if you intend to indulge in more quote-mining, let me ask you to give links to the full text. If you haven't got them because Brown never provided them, just say so. Then we can draw our own conclusions.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#555 Postby Pahu » July 6th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Fossil Gaps 7



In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.” “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” [i]Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]


Here we go again, Pahu.

Although it is your job to provide a link to the full text, you have not done so. Both the Manchester Guardian and The Washington Post Weekly archives require subscription to view articles, so I am not going to do your job for you.
The Quote Mine Project, however, casts some light on the matter:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-3.html
Quote #52

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol 119, no 22, p. 1)

The complete paragraph:

The evidence against the standard view is contained in a lack of evidence. If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. The alternative theory is called (regrettably) "punctuated equilibrium" or "punctuationalism." According to this, the diversity of life has come about as a result of sporadic adaptations by small, well-defined groups confronted by a new environment, interspersed with long periods of little or no change.

Once again, Punctuated Equilibrium is being discussed, and it is Gradualism, and not evolution, which is being critiqued. But one has to wonder why the quote-miner didn't include the last sentence of the article as well:

What is extraordinary is that in the 120 years since Darwin appeared to have cracked the problem with elegant neatness in "The Origin of Species," the principle has withstood all attacks on it - and yet still evolves loose ends.


First, we note that Brown used three ellipses. If what we see above is the whole paragraph, Brown stitched together sentences from different paragraphs.

Second, we seem to be getting the words of a reporter, not the words of Eldredge himself.

But let us set that aside and ask what exactly is being said. As the phrase " little by little" suggests, the point is not the absence of transitional forms but the size of the gaps between them. Eldredge favours PE rather than Gradualism as an explanation for this.

Now, anyone with a passing acquaintance with Gould and Eldredge's ideas about PE could have told you that.

Pahu, if you intend to indulge in more quote-mining, let me ask you to give links to the full text. If you haven't got them because Brown never provided them, just say so. Then we can draw our own conclusions.


The hopeful monster notion has been rejected by intelligent people:

SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT THE MONSTER MUTATION THEORY


We are devoting two full articles to this topic, because so many evolutionists are swinging over to acceptance of it. First read the preceding article (The Monster Mutation Theory), and then read this. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

Evolutionists Are Hoping that Monster Mutations May be the Key : They are still trying to figure out a way that cross-species changes could be made
Originating a Futile Theory - The men who got it started
A Theory Born of Desperation - The theory was invented because every other possible means of evolution of life forms had failed

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.

EVOLUTIONISTS ARE HOPING THAT MONSTER MUTATIONS MAY BE THE KEY

They are still trying to figure out a way that cross-species changes could be made.

"Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes."—*World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, p. 335 (1982 edition).

"Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires."—*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation . . is well-substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as `hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that `they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection.' Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer. Indeed, having all the equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all . . To believe that such a drastic mutation would `produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, `is equivalent to believing in miracles."—*E. Mayr, "Populations" in Species and Evolution (1970), p. 253.

"Saltation, derived from the Latin, means jumping or leaping from place to place. It can be used to describe the peculiar locomotion of grasshoppers . .

"When Charles Darwin first expressed his theory of evolution, he adopted this timeworn cliche as [not being] part of the evolutionary process: `Natura non facit saltum' (Nature makes no leaps)."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 393.

ORIGINATING A FUTILE THEORY

The men who got it started.

"After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Professor Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen there would still be no new species."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

"Although he [Goldschmidt] recognized the constant accumulation of small changes in populations (microevolution) [changes within species], he believed they did not lead to speciation. Between true species he saw `bridgeless gaps' that could not be accounted for by large sudden jumps, resulting in `hopeful monsters.' "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990).

"Although Gould has become closely identified with the influential idea of punctuated equilibrium, it actually originated with paleontologist Niles Eldredge and was developed by them jointly."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 198.

A THEORY BORN OF DESPERATION

The theory was invented because every other possible means of evolutionary life forms had failed.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."—*S.J. Gould, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 127 [*Milner is himself a saltationist and close friend of *Gould].

"Systemic mutation [large numbers of positive, perfect, coordinated mutations suddenly changing one species to another] have never been observed, and it is extremely improbable that species are formed in so abrupt a manner."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1941), p. 80.

"The evidence, whether genetic, morphological, or functional is so uniformly opposed to a saltationist origin of new structures that no choice is left but to search for explanations in terms of a gradual origin."—*Ernst Mayr, Evolution and the Diversity of Life (1976), p. 95.

"To some geneticists all monsters are hopeless."—*Jerry Adler and *John Carey, "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" in Newsweek, November 3, 1980, p. 96.

"However, although geneticists know of some mutations which cause fairly drastic changes, they have entirely failed to discover the kind of macromutations required by the saltation theory—the kind of mutation which would take a group of organisms from one order to another. Moreover, the large-effect mutations which are known are usually just those mutations which are the most crippling to their carrier . . Of course, one might argue that the failure to find the right kind of macromutations does not necessarily prove their nonexistence; but, like unicorns, there is a difference between saying that logically they might exist or that it is reasonable to suppose that they exist."—*Michael Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 111 [italics his].

"There are few (if any) genetically well-established cases of morphological macromutations which have been fixed in natural populations of animals. Mutations of large effect are almost always deleterious . .

"Advocates of punctuated equilibrium and macromutations cite as evidence the frequent absence of transitional forms from the fossil record. This negative information is not convincing."—*Russell Lande, "A Review of Microevolution in Relation to Macroevolution," in Paleobiology 6(2):234-5.

"The absurdity of believing in the simultaneous appearance of numerous `hopeful monsters' as Goldschmidt has called them, was far more clearly appreciated by Darwin than by some recent evolutionists."—*Ernst Mayr, Evolution and the Diversity of Life (1976), p. 93.

"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).

"Just imagine that scientific dispute has sunk to this level. What would the falsification of this prediction imply, if not Specific Creation?"—*Soren Lovtrop, "Semantics, Logic and Vulgate Neo-Darwinianism," in Evolutionary Theory, July, 1979, p. 162.

"In a sense, the concept of `punctuated equilibria' is tautological. In essence it submits a factual observation: since the rate of evolution is not a slow, creeping one, it is a very fast, sudden one! This concept is quite interesting from yet another aspect; it even implies the concept of creation. In the final analysis, a very sudden change is tantamount to an act of sudden creation.

"We have established that a single cell bacteria requires about 3,000,000 nucleotides so as to function and reproduce as a unicell species. A human cell contains about 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in a very specific sequence. We may assume that the cell of a trilobite was somewhere in between. Shall we extend it the benefit of the doubt and guesstimate it to have 500,000,000 meaningfully aligned nucleotides? (The argument would still be valid were it eventually established that a trilobite had, for example, as few as 20 million or as many as 920 million nucleotides). How will we get from 3 million to 500 million? What is the probability that 497 million nucleotides would align themselves—all by themselves—into a very, very specific sequence? Certainly Gould and Eldredge would agree that the probability is nil."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), pp. 98-99.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... 0mut15.htm
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#556 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 6th, 2017, 10:46 pm

No sources to rebut the charge of quote-mining?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#557 Postby Pahu » July 12th, 2017, 7:51 pm

Fossil Gaps 8



Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.” David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record,” [i]Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“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.” David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” [i]Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.

[i] “When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.” Ibid., p. 97.

[i] “There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.” Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,” [i] Science,
Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

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

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#558 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 15th, 2017, 12:48 am

Pahu, let me remind you of what I said:

Pahu, if you intend to indulge in more quote-mining, let me ask you to give links to the full text. If you haven't got them because Brown never provided them, just say so. Then we can draw our own conclusions.


and

No sources to rebut the charge of quote-mining?
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

Compassionist
Posts: 3189
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#559 Postby Compassionist » July 15th, 2017, 12:56 pm

Hi Pahu, you should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc Thank you.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 206
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#560 Postby Pahu » July 15th, 2017, 3:03 pm

Compassionist wrote:Hi Pahu, you should check out http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc Thank you.


Your link makes a lot of evidence free assertions. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Science vs. Macroevolution


One finds many in the secular community constantly equating the word science with macroevolution, or large change. This has led to gross misunderstanding of those who are trying to fathom the origins issue. If macroevolution and science are used synonymously, then of course creation science would be “anti-science.”

Let’s address this issue by first defining our terms. Although many definitions have appeared, science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observation. The late G. G. Simpson of Harvard stated in Science magazine that “it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science.”

But the origins debate centers around macroevolution, and macroevolution has never been observed. One of the architects of neo-Darwinism agrees: “It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).

One can clearly see that according to secular sources, macroevolution and true science have nothing to do with each other. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding continues to be propagated by those who should know better and they perpetuate it for their own secular agenda.

For example, staff writer John Tedesco of the San Antonio Express News reported (11/08/99) Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg as saying, “I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive to religious belief, and I’m all for that.”

John Maddox, the former editor of Nature magazine, observed, “. . . it may not be long before the practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science.” This is true, if by the word “science” Maddox means “macroevolution.” True Biblical worship has never meshed with the particle-to-people philosophy (macroevolution). Indeed, not long ago a creation scientist (and Nobel prize winner) stated, “Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything” (A. H. Compton [d. 1962]).


http://www.icr.org/article/science-vs-macroevolution/
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 603
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#561 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » July 17th, 2017, 9:39 pm

Pahu wrote:

Science vs. Macroevolution




Let’s address this issue by first defining our terms. Although many definitions have appeared, science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observation. The late G. G. Simpson of Harvard stated in Science magazine that “it is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything . . . or at the very least, they are not science."



Here is the source of the Simpson quotation:
https://www.gwern.net/docs/algernon/1964-simpson.pdf

The relevant sentence is :
It is inherent in any acceptable definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything -or at the very least they are not science.


The word " acceptable" has been omitted from the version you quote. Whether it matters or not to the meaning, it tells us that the writer did not check his sources. The same omission occurs many times in creationist literature, so it is a fair inference that the writer simply repeated it uncritically. And he may have had no acquaintance at all with the context. Simpson was warning against speculation without evidence and against wishful thinking.

Now, let's have a look at this:
One finds many in the secular community constantly equating the word science with macroevolution, or large change.


Really? Does the writer understand the word " equate"?


One of the architects of neo-Darwinism agrees: “It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957)


Nothing to complain about there, but look at the next bit:

One can clearly see that according to secular sources, macroevolution and true science have nothing to do with each other.


Can you see the bait-and-switch there?
If you can't, here it is: Simpson warns against what cannot be checked by observation. Dobzhansky points out that certain things cannot be reproduced in the laboratory.

Your writer could have spared us the trouble of reading through his daft argument if he had just chirped: Were you there? Were you there?
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: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest