Apologies - This thread split into two topics - I've moved the second topic into a new thread "Something from nothing" in the Spirituality vs Skepticism section, that can be found here.

I agree. This is the best evidence that is out there in my opinion. Irrefutable. My people were indigenous to the Americas, we didn't milk buffalo so we didn't develop this ability. If I have more than about a cereal bowl of milk a day I can count on being out of work the next. I think genetics are absolutely amazing, but I still wish I could eat and drink all the dairy I want. . I love ice cream.

I wonder what the results would be if there was a survey done of people who were raised on farms, who did milk cows so had an abundant supply?

The only people who think evolution is taught as established fact are creationists who dispute evolution ..... The rest of the world is taught that like gravity, planetary formation, plate tectonics etc it's a well established scientific theory - capable of being falsified but, significantly, as yet not falsified.

To disprove evolution you falsify it. Simple

Upon falsification the theory will be rejected or amended as appropriate.

I suppose the reason it's not been falsified by creationists is that falsification must be undertaken using due scientific process - and not by a modern, obtuse, reinterpretation of 3,000 year old religious and folklore texts

First all i understand falsification test, and its not only a scientific means of falsifying something, you can apply to religion, or religious texts etc, i know some religious texts that give a falsification test to the reader, to try and disprove it claim of dvivinity. But thats a different story. im not creationist, in the sense you believe. I do believe in God, but at the same time i believe in the power of science. To me science eliminates all false models of God, and the confirms the real model of god. Thats a different topic too.

Now for mutations and meiosis.

As process of nature, natural selection was familiar to biologists before Darwin, who defined it as a "mechanism that keeps species unchanging without being corrupted". Darwin was the first person to put forward the assertion that this process had evolutionary power and he then erected his entire theory on the foundation of this assertion. The name he gave to his book indicates that natural selection was the basis of Darwin's theory: The Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection...
However since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.
Natural selection holds that those living things that are more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will prevail by having offspring that will survive, whereas those that are unfit will disappear. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of wild animals, naturally those that can run faster will survive. That is true. But no matter how long this process goes on, it will not transform those deer into another living species. The deer will always remain deer.
When we look at the few incidents the evolutionists have put forth as observed examples of natural selection, we see that these are nothing but a simple attempt to hoodwink.


In 1986 Douglas Futuyma published a book, The Biology of Evolution, which is accepted as one of the sources explaining the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most explicit way. The most famous of his examples on this subject is about the colour of the moth population, which appeared to darken during the Industrial Revolution in England. It is possible to find the story of the Industrial Melanism in almost all evolutionist biology books, not just in Futuyma's book. The story is based on a series of experiments conducted by the British physicist and biologist Bernard Kettlewell in the 1950s, and can be summarised as follows:
According to the account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the colour of the tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-coloured (melanic) moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the barks of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-coloured moths to dark-coloured moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-coloured moths "evolved" into dark-coloured ones.
However, even if we assume these to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation". In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.
This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionist biology book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:
• Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that "in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific".
• Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.
• As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.
These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.
Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary to what evolutionists claim. It is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another.

Why Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
There is nothing that natural selection contributes to the theory of evolution, because this mechanism can never increase or improve the genetic information of a species. Neither can it transform one species into another: a starfish into a fish, a fish into a frog, a frog into a crocodile, or a crocodile into a bird. The biggest defender of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as conscious. However, natural selection has no consciousness. It does not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living things. As a result, one cannot explain biological systems and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity" by natural selection. These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective. (For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all its components intact). Therefore, the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Through natural selection, only the disfigured, weak, or unfit individuals of a species are selected out. New species, new genetic information, or new organs cannot be produced. That is, living things cannot evolve through natural selection. Darwin accepted this reality by saying: "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur". This is why neo-Darwinism has had to elevate mutations next to natural selection as the "cause of beneficial changes". However as we shall see, mutations can only be "the cause for harmful changes".

To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:

l) The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
2) Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: As a result of mutations, the particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
3) In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
It is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

Ozi,

Your whole argument above is based on a single false premise - that natural selection causes mutation and so originates species. This is exemplified by this statement you have quoted from Stephen Jay Gould...



...note the highlighted section.

This is entirely incorrect. SJG is correct in suggesting natural selection eleiminates the unfit, but it has no active role in 'creation of fitness' and to state so is to misrespresent the concept.

As for "nearly all mutations are harmful" and "no useful mutation has been observed"...

Linky

As for "mutation adds no information", well information is not just DNA in biology...



source

...but how the sequences are decoded and expressed. If no change to the base DNA structure occurs, but a change in expression results from a mutation with no loss of previous expression then this is an increase in information and this has already been shown to happen as I linked to in my previous post where a mutant protein (Apo-AIM) has gained an antioxidant characteristic with no loss of the non-mutant Apo-AI's lipid-binding capability.

To be honest, ALL your arguments have been refuted years ago. Go to TalkOrigins and look them up yourself, because this happens [the posting of refutations of Creationist arguments] every time someone who thinks they've "cracked Evolution" puts up the same old, tired, Creationist claptrap.

Good post...

Ozi, why have you made it your mission to disprove something that the most educated, logical, and highly trained people in the world have come up with? A few creationist websites written by the youth group leader at a baptist church somewhere are in no way refutable sources, and I don't understand what you think you have to back up your whole claim.

The things you have presented so far have been opinions. That is unsubstantial, and won't be taken seriously by anyone in here.

Ozi, it is very bad nettiquette, and it is against the rules of this forum to post copyrighted material without giving at least due credit to the author of the piece. Please always make sure to include the source. If you don't, it makes it look like you are trying to pass off someone else's work on as your own. In this particular case, it is very clear that the author and you have a distinctly different style of writing.

Additionally, if you make a rather large post and then are questioned on the specifics and are unable to answer them because you did not do the work that went into writing the article, you will lose credibility not just as a researcher, but as a debater as well.




Ozi, are you saying that you disagree or do not understand what I wrote above? If so, please clarify which part you do not understand or disagree with and I will expand on it. I cannot take it for granted that you understood what you previously posted.

ONE of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.

However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.

Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.

Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.

Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."

The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:

1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.

2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.

Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:

E. coli bacteria

Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evidence for evolution as suggested by Darwinists.

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics. 69

Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70

So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.

The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. 71

In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity. 72

To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.

Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken.

The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."73 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.

In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO

Since you fail to provide the links of you're sources Ozi! I will do it for you.

Link- Evolution and bacterial resistance to antibiotics

Science and Creationism also deals with speciation, another of the classic errors of the evolutionists (Science and Creationism, p. 10). According to this booklet, "Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate." In this view, living things exposed to geographic isolation-in other words separated from one another by geographical borders-become increasingly different from the other members of the group they have split away from, as a result of mutation, natural selection, and other processes. The result is that new species eventually emerge. Or so the NAS claims. However, the fact is that the process referred to here leads not to the emergence of new species, but rather to variation-in other words to different forms within a single species. What is misleading here is that the evolutionists use the concept of "species"-which is in any case subject to debate-in a manner to suit their theory.

Different experts in various areas of biology offer differing definitions of "species." The biologist John Endler makes the following comment about the chaos these various definitions have caused:


Species are "tools that are fashioned for characterizing organic diversity" (Lewin, 1979). Just as there are a variety of chisels made for different purposes, different species concepts are best for different purposes; and just as it is inadvisable to use a carving chisel to cut a mortise, problems arise when one species concept is used when it is inappropriate. Confusion and controversy have often resulted because different people working with different groups of organisms mean different things by "species".1

Professor Ali Demirsoy, a prominent proponent of Darwinism in Turkey, expresses this fact in these terms:

The question of along which lines the species, taken as the basic unit in the classification of animals and plants, should be distinguished from other species, in other words the definition of "species," is one of the hardest questions for biology to answer. To give a definition which applies to all animal and plant groups appears impossible in the present state of our knowledge.2

The word species generally brings to mind kinds such as dogs, horses, spiders, dolphins, and apples. The theory of evolution's claims regarding the "origin of species" bring to mind the origin of these life forms. Biologists, however, define "species" in a different way. According to modern biology, a living species is a population consisting of individuals which can mate and reproduce amongst themselves. This definition separates groups of living things that we think of as single species in daily life, into many more species. For instance, some 34,000 species of spider have been described.3

In order to understand the deception in evolutionary theory with regard to speciation, "geographic isolation" first needs to be clarified. In every living species there are differences stemming from genetic variation. If a natural obstacle such as a mountain range, a river, or the sea comes between two populations belonging to a given species, and the populations thus become "isolated" from one another, then in all probability different variants will begin to dominate the two separated groups.4 For instance, variant A, a dark-colored and long-haired variation, might come to dominate one group, while variant B, a shorter-haired and lighter-colored variation, might become predominant in the other. The more the two populations are separated from one another, the more the two variants become distinct. Cases of variation like these, with distinguishing morphological differences among subgroups of the same species, are known as "subspecies."


Some 34,000 species of spider have been identified.

Here the speciation claim enters the picture. Sometimes it happens that when variants A and B, after having split away from each other due to geographical isolation, are brought back together in some way but are unable to reproduce with each other. Since they are unable to reproduce, they cease being subspecies, according to the modern biological definition of "species," and become separate species. This is known as "speciation."

Evolutionists, however, make the following unwarranted inference: "There are some cases of speciation in nature by natural means; therefore, all species emerged in this way." However, there is a major deception concealed within this argument.

Two important elements of this deception are:


How did living species first come into being? How did the bacterial, protist, fungus, plant, and animal worlds first emerge on the Earth? How did phyla-the highest taxonomic category (for example, chordates and molluscs)-as well as classes (mammals and birds), orders (primates and carnivores), and families (cats and dogs) first come about? These are the questions which evolutionists really need to answer.

1) Variants A and B, geographically isolated from one another, may not be able to reproduce when they come together. Yet this generally stems from "mating behavior" differences. In other words, individuals belonging to variants A and B do not mate because they regard the other variant as foreign to themselves. However, there is no genetic impediment to their reproducing. For that reason, they are still members of the same species from the point of view of genetic information. (In fact, for this reason the concept of "species" continues to be the subject of debate in biology.)

2) The really important point is that the "speciation" in question is not an increase in genetic information, but on the contrary stems from a loss of such information. The reason for the differentiation is not that new genetic information has been added to one or other of the variants. There is no such addition. For instance, neither of the variants acquires a new protein, enzyme, or organ. There is no "development" here. On the contrary, instead of a population which had previously harbored different sets of genetic information (in our example, a population possessing both long and short hair, as well as both light and dark colors), now there are two populations that are both impoverished from the point of view of genetic information.

For this reason, nothing about speciation supports the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution claims that living species evolved from one another, from the simpler to the more complex, completely by chance. For the theory to be taken seriously, therefore, it needs to posit a mechanism for increasing genetic information. It needs to be able to explain how living things without eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, wings, feet, and other organs and systems came to acquire them, and where the genetic information describing such systems and organs came from. A mechanism that divides an already-existing species into two groups, each of which undergoes a loss of genetic information, clearly has nothing to do with this.

This is in fact accepted by evolutionists. For this reason, they define variations within a species and instances of speciation by division of a population into two parts as "microevolution." Microevolution is used in the sense of variations occurring within an already existing species. Yet the inclusion of the term "evolution" in this description is a deliberate deception. There is no evolutionary process here at all, not even a "micro" one. This process merely distributes genetic information that already exists within the genetic pool among a different combination of individuals.

The questions that need to be answered are these: How did the living categories first come into being? How did the kingdoms of the Monera (bacteria), Protista (amoebas), Fungi (mushrooms), Plantae, and Animalia come into being? How did the higher taxonomical categories of families (cats and dogs), orders (carnivores and primates), classes (birds and mammals), and phyla (chordates, arthropods, and molluscs) first come into being? These are the issues that evolutionists need to be able to explain.

Evolutionists describe their theories concerning the origin of these basic categories as "macroevolution." It is actually macroevolution which is intended when the theory of evolution is referred to. That is because the genetic variations known as microevolution are an observed biological phenomenon accepted by everyone, but one which has nothing to do with evolution itself (in spite of the name), as we have seen above. As far as the claim of macroevolution is concerned, there is no evidence for it at all, either in observational biology or in the fossil record.

There is an absolutely essential point to be made here. Those with insufficient knowledge in this area may be deceived into thinking that "Since microevolution takes place in a very short space of time, macroevolution could also occur given tens of millions of years." Some evolutionists do indeed make this mistake, or else attempt to use this error to make others believe in the theory of evolution. This is the form that all of Charles Darwin's "proofs of evolution" in The Origin of Species take. The examples put forward by subsequent evolutionists are all along the same lines, as well. In all of these examples, the genetic variation known to evolutionists as microevolution is used as proof of the theory they describe as macroevolution.


Let us give an example to illustrate the error in this reasoning. What would you say if someone proposed to you the following argument? "A bullet fired into the air from a pistol travels at 400 km (250 miles) an hour. It will therefore shortly leave the Earth's atmosphere and reach the moon, and in the weeks that follow will eventually arrive at the planet Mars."

If someone made such a claim to you, you would immediately realize that it was a simple deception. The person making the claim is expressing only a very narrow observation (about the speed of the bullet leaving the pistol) and is concealing two basic facts, gravity and friction, which restrict the progress of the bullet. All evolutionists' attempts to derive macroevolution from microevolution employ exactly the same method.

The upshot of this micro/macro evolution debate and evolutionists' "speciation" fairytales is this: Living things emerged on the Earth as "kinds" possessing structures that differed from one another. (The fossil record demonstrates this.) Within these kinds, variants and subspecies may appear thanks to the richness of their genetic pools. For instance, the "rabbit" type contains white-haired and grey-haired, and long-eared and short-eared, variants within itself, and these have spread according to the prevailing natural conditions. However, kinds can never turn into each other. There is no natural mechanism that can design new kinds, or that can form new organs, systems, or body plans within a type. Each kind was created with its own peculiar structure, and since God has created them all with a rich variation potential, every kind produces a rich, but restricted, range of variation

I never said these are going to be my words, I am using different opinion from different academics.... That was clear from the start. An that was not the link..... I have the books, then in in form of e-books and hard back. I am not just refering to one source... And the link you gave was not where i got my details from.

Ozi, if you are unable to argue the case in your own words, then we are forced to conclude that you do not have sufficient knowledge to do so. What you are doing now is tactic made famous by creationists. Essentially, you are posting quantity in the hopes that no one will look for quality. This is a discussion forum. As such, we like to discuss things. If you are not able to discuss things, then I recommend you do not continue posting in this manner, as it will do harm to your credibility on this board.

One does not show respect to a differing opinion by agreeing with it, Ozi. One shows respect by understanding it. Right now, you are not only showing a grave misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and process, you are showing and even graver refusal to understand an opposing viewpoint. Of the two, it is the latter which will get you labeled "close-minded" the fastest.

I urge you to cease thinking of this as some sort of contest in which you win by shoveling in as many sources as you can. After all, why should anyone be interested in refuting your sources if there is no reason to believe that you either understand them, or even that you would listen to any refutation? If you wish to gain the respect a true and credible member of this forum gets, then the easiest way is to make an effort to understand what it is that "evolutionists" are actually saying. No one is asking you to believe them, or even agree with them. All they are asking is for you to stop misrepresenting them.

I never noticed in the rules and regulations of this forum, that one must be a Prof. or have letters behind their name to post here. Just because Ozi does not write in "professional" form in his posts, does not mean he doesn't understand what he's reading.

I am not prejudiced to any theory, but I don't see any proof in these papers, where a new breed or "species" develops by mutation. So a skeleton has 3 roots in his tooth? So what? Several people I know grew a whole new set of teeth after having them all out. Does that make them so they aren't human? I've yet to see anywhere, a paper written by a scientist saying that there was a recorded experiment done in a lab where an amoeba turned into a dog or cow or whatever. Oh - excuse me that would take too long wouldn't it? Well, maybe they could at least show where it turned into a mouse.

No one said anyone had to. You do, however, have to give credit where credit is due. If you do not, that is called plagarizing.



No, but a tactic of posting other peoples work and an avoidance of discussing the posted topics indicates that the poster is unable to debate.



Se, right here, you should be asking that question with a serious intent to learn, as opposed as a dismissal. If you believe that this is being claimed by evolutionists as significant, but you can't see the signifigance, you should try and understand what it is, rather than assuming that because you don't see it, it must not be there.



No. That would not meet the scientific definition of speciation



That would be absolutely remarkable. It would also be definitive proof that evolutionary theory was completely incorrect.

As I understand this informtion, a mutation is usually minor, is not passed on by heredity, is usually damaging or harmful, but does not create a new species. Adapting to environment, in the case of an animal species when separated from each other and one herd lightens in coat, and one darkens, seems to have already been programmed into the DNA and is activated when necessary.


A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.
A Mutagen is an agent of substance that can bring about a permanent alteration to the physical composition of a DNA gene such that the genetic message is changed.

Once the gene has been damaged or changed the mRNA transcribed from that gene will now carry an altered message.

The polypeptide made by translating the altered mRNA will now contain a different sequence of amino acids. The function of the protein made by folding this polypeptide will probably be changed or lost.
Mutagens
Chemical Mutagens change the sequence of bases in a DNA gene in a number of ways;
mimic the correct nucleotide bases in a DNA molecule, but fail to base pair correctly during DNA replication.
remove parts of the nucleotide (such as the amino group on adenine), again causing improper base pairing during DNA replication.
add hydrocarbon groups to various nucleotides, also causing incorrect base pairing during DNA replication.
Radiation High energy radiation from a radioactive material or from X-rays is absorbed by the atoms in water molecules surrounding the DNA. This energy is transferred to the electrons which then fly away from the atom. Left behind is a free radical, which is a highly dangerous and highly reactive molecule that attacks the DNA molecule and alters it in many ways.
Radiation can also cause double strand breaks in the DNA molecule, which the cell's repair mechanisms cannot put right.

Sunlight contains ultraviolet radiation (the component that causes a suntan) which, when absorbed by the DNA causes a cross link to form between certain adjacent bases. In most normal cases the cells can repair this damage, but unrepaired dimers of this sort cause the replicating system to skip over the mistake leaving a gap, which is supposed to be filled in later.
Unprotected exposure to UV radiation by the human skin can cause serious damage and may lead to skin cancer and extensive skin tumors.

Spontaneous mutations occur without exposure to any obvious mutagenic agent. Sometimes DNA nucleotides shift without warning to a different chemical form (know as an isomer) which in turn will form a different series of hydrogen bonds with it's partner. This leads to mistakes at the time of DNA replication.

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/BioInf...Definition.html

I cannot discern what you are trying to say here.

What is the big issue??? Evolution is a theory and it is thought to be highly credible by scientists. Scientists used dating methods verified by many people. These show fossils of increasing complexity as we get closer to modern time . Therefore the logical conclusion is that organisms evolved. (something from nothing cannot be)

Science cannot explain what happened before the Big Bang. Whatever happened before the big Bang is Something from nothing.
Either matter always existed or God created the Big Bang to set everything in motiong. Science cannot explain this and do not try to.

They rely on facts . They gather facts when they have enough they speculate or theorise. Evolution as a theory as evolved as well as new discoveries were made. It is not engraved in stone. Scientists do not cling to it as religious people do to their philosophies . They simply see it as a theory and a credible one for it has stood the test of time.

Every scientific theory goes through scrutiny. They only deal with facts. Questioning scientific facts eg dating methods etc is not a good idea. If you educate yourself in scientific ways and reperform the experiments you will obtain the same results as the scientists did because they use logical steps to arrive at a solution.

Bottom line no theory in science is sacred ,but facts have to be uncovered before a theory loses its credibility.
Religion requires no facts only belief. Creationism should stay away from science. Science does not impose itself on religion and forces religion to teach science from the pulpits. This is crazy. Only closed minded people find fault with science .

Sure there is critisim of some theories in science and it is open to your personal opinion , but science is still the best tool for discovering the truth we have because logic is used. You can call science by any other name logical analysis of nature etc.
because that is just what it is. No belief , no bias only pure logic 1+1=2.

What I am saying is instead of dismissing something by saying "So what?", you should be asking "So what?" seriously, in an attempt to find out why it is considered so significant by evolutionists.

Why do scientists get so excited when they discover a molar with three roots? Why do scientists get annoyed when someone says that evolution claims that ameobas' turn into hamsters? If you say something that you believe is part of the evolutionary theory, and an evolutionists mentions that it has nothing to do with it, could it perhaps be that you might not understand evolution as well as you thought you did?

What I am saying is that instead of assuming you already known and understand the topic of evolution, and disagree with its correctness, you should make sure that you understand what the claims are, and be able to argue them. That way, even if you disagree with the claims, you will still be able to show, in your own words, that you do know what you are talking about, and even if you disagree with others, you will still gain a measure of respect as a thinking individual. If, on the other hand, all you do is use other people to talk for you, you will be regarded as a person who cannot think for themselves, and thus lose credibility.

I encourage you to ask questions about evolution, and to really listen to the answers. You don't have to agree with them, but seriously, if you knew that you were misrepresenting someone else's position in an argument, would you continue doing so? If you are claiming that evolutionists claim something that they don't, then that is exactly what you are doing, albeit unintentionally.

I think this is one of the best posts I have read on these forums so far!

As far as Ozi,

You are using the typical Creationist tactics, but I don't recall you ever stating you were a Creationist. You are quick to pick a side and defend it by cutting and pasting, but we have no idea what you DO believe. It's always easier to try and debunk someone else's theory than to come up with your own, it requires a lot less analytical thinking and logic.

You keep drawing (or rather copying and pasting about) a line between simple organisms and complex ones. So, you believe evolution occurs in simple organisms, but not complex?

You are killing the rest of us with paragraphs of stuff that has either been proven incorrect, or is strictly an opinion by someone who may or may not have credentials to be a good source. You stall when asked a specific question, so that you can scour the internet for the opposing answer. I am not trying to come down on you, because as anyone in here knows, we LOVE a good, intelligent debate. That's why most of us signed up in the first place. But, you are not providing us with anything we can actually debate, all your points are too easy to just disregard; someone else with the right credentials already disproved them a long time ago.

You entered this thread with battle cries of 'destroying' all our evidence. Which you haven't even begun to. You are going about this all wrong. If you have something that hasn't already been labeled as incorrect Creationist propaganda, please for the love of god, present it.

Otherwise, your battle cries are sounding more and more like someone who just wanted to sound smarter than the rest of us, but isn't.

I am getting pretty sick of this attitude towards me that im just using thec creationist argument to say there is a god and that i just cut and paste their stuff. Many have the book evolution Deciet, have the book new research disproves evloution theory, I have refutation of darwinism, and atheirsm etc, i could friggin go on.

To cut and paste the stuff i have is from the e-books I have not the links you people keep goin on about. Hell if i wanted to prve there is a god, that would be easy, im trying to prove the evloution theory and collection of different principles come together to form the theory, so im debunking it using material from proper academics. This does not mean i dont understand it, ofcourse i do.

If i was just giving my own words, you evolutionist would then say thats my opinion etc, who am i to tell you say etc, and why dont i speak to real scientists or use their material etc.

We have discussed mutation , speciation and natural selection, what i ahve given you barely scratches the surface, if delve in to the fossil records, new research and old shows they dont prove evolution but on the contrary, their prove the sudden appearance of complex organisms, if i then went on to tell you about the forgeries and evolutionist operate that too would shock you. And if i told you the probability of an amino acid coming by chance to form a protien cell, its a mathamtical impossibility, the figure is so high its even absurd to think it actually happened. Look guys the material i am posting, even evolitionist dare not debate it with the source of my material, they have been challenged thousands of time, but reject to do so.

My point being, i know where the rebuttals are, and luckily i have the material that anwsers them too. So instead of whinging and acting like prof, why dont you cut paste the rebuttals, I will stilll have anwsers for them. As for a source, i given you the book names some of them. some other poeple have provided links to sites that have the same material or similar, check it, and if you can refute it, do so. Cause I am prepared.

[quote name='SunDogDayze' date='Dec 11 2007, 01:20 PM' post='2031097']
I think this is one of the best posts I have read on these forums so far!

As far as Ozi,

You are using the typical Creationist tactics, but I don't recall you ever stating you were a Creationist. You are quick to pick a side and defend it by cutting and pasting, but we have no idea what you DO believe. It's always easier to try and debunk someone else's theory than to come up with your own, it requires a lot less analytical thinking and logic.

You keep drawing (or rather copying and pasting about) a line between simple organisms and complex ones. So, you believe evolution occurs in simple organisms, but not complex?

You are killing the rest of us with paragraphs of stuff that has either been proven incorrect, or is strictly an opinion by someone who may or may not have credentials to be a good source. You stall when asked a specific question, so that you can scour the internet for the opposing answer. I am not trying to come down on you, because as anyone in here knows, we LOVE a good, intelligent debate. That's why most of us signed up in the first place. But, you are not providing us with anything we can actually debate, all your points are too easy to just disregard; someone else with the right credentials already disproved them a long time ago.

You entered this thread with battle cries of 'destroying' all our evidence. Which you haven't even begun to. You are going about this all wrong. If you have something that hasn't already been labeled as incorrect Creationist propaganda, please for the love of god, present it.

Otherwise, your battle cries are sounding more and more like someone who just wanted to sound smarter than the rest of us, but isn't.
[/quote





I dunno what you have been reading, but, i dont think anyone has provided an appropriate rebuttal, they just repeating themselves. Of course some specific question will take longer to anwser them, the point is i still do and with the appropriate material. The reason most of you want a sourcey, is then you can find a counter source directly for it, i know how you peeps work. The point is you all knopw where its coming from its not big secret, i cant remember who posted a link thinking i got material from it, even though i dint, the link did have the same material, so it was there for all to check, wo why still whinging.

Micro evloution and macroevlotion, i have dealt with both so far in th post, neither are proof for evolution, especially macroevolution, and micro evolution clearly as a result, you do not get anything new, but in short a transfer of information, which has been previously there. so what next, shall we move on to the humble cell and just how complex that is to evolve.

Oh yeh if i was just rying to prove the existence of God I would not start at evolution, but at this a simple law of physics.....

anythign limited, is always due to source a which unlimited.

EVerything we know the whole universe, even energy, which can transfer from thing to another, or change its form, will eventually dissapate, therefore also limited. So if everything we know is limited, it must be due to a source which is unlimited. (i.e God)

Depends on what you mean by 'complex.

Michigan Tech

Chicago Field Museum

Do you consider single-celled organisms 'complex'?

Do you think that single cell is complex, not as complex a those that have more cells, No. but dont worry we shall come to it soon.

According to the erroneous theory of evolution, more sophisticated life forms must have evolved from other, more primitive ones. Yet there are no complex life forms at all prior to those of the Cambrian Period. These Cambrian life forms appeared all at once, with not a single earlier forerunner. The British zoologist Richard Dawkins, the best-known living proponent of the theory of evolution, admits that:

It is as though they [Cambrian creatures] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.11

11. R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. 229

Ernst Mayr, possibly the most prominent biologist of the twentieth century:

Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism . . . and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record.8

8 Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991, p. 138


Darwin’s theory of evolution claims that all forms of life are descended from one original single cell. According to that claim, all the millions of plant and animal species must have descended from this single cell. In the fossil record, therefore, there should exist various traces of the “family tree” deriving from this common ancestor. Evolutionists maintain that there is a direct line of descent between this imaginary first cell and all later living species, from fish to primates and from octopuses to frogs. If this hypothesis is true, then it should have left available traces. Namely:

1. An enormous number of intermediate forms, and

2. A slow, incremental, gradual change in the anatomy of specimens in the fossil record,

3. The earliest living things should display a simple structure and show evidence of their development from even simpler forms,

4. New life forms should emerge not as entirely different species, but as subspecies barely distinguishable from one another. And these subspecies should diverge from one another more and more over the course of time. Higher biological categories such as families, order and classes should gradually appear as the living world expanded—that is, slowly.

No offense but you can't and you haven't rebutted nor refuted anything. You haven't even posted anything scientifically accurate yet. You're cutting and pasting a whole bunch of crap that has been refuted over and over again already on this forum. It's typical junk we've seen a million times before but if you want individual refutations pick one portion of your argument and stick with it until it's resolved rather than ten paragraph cut and pastes. I mean, really, the probability of amino acids coming together to form a protein cell? First off the probablity is unresolvable given the data we have, secondly there is no such thing as a "protein cell", and lastly abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution directly. Now pick one thing, in your words, maybe with a link if need be, and then discussion can take place. If you can't do that, then you don't even understand you're own argument let alone the other side's. Which, by the way, is really needed if actually wish to refute something.

Now see how dumb this is. You are using a quote from one of the most eminent evolutionary biologists of our time as some kind of refutation of evolutionary theory when he fully supports it. I'm sorry, but this is typical creationist junk. Here's another quote from him:

“The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30's and 40's, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years.”

You see, he just argued for a different mechanism that's all. See, this is the problem.

Ok i dont really know the details to jump right into this debate but (and sorry this is from a page back) i had to bring up this quote



err... I really dont know what to say. If that's easier than disproving evolution then to be honest I'd be more intrested in that topic. I would adore to see proof of God. If you can do that no one will argue anything else with you I promise.

I would agree with you if there was any hope at all that Ozi may be right.

You guys are funny, not single reply was a rebuttal from you guys on the post i sent, words of promnent scientists, but hey, because they were not mine, you wont entertain them.

You say "I'm sorry, did you just say that proving God's existence would be easy? Okay, I think I know what the problem is. Do you know what the definition of proof is? It sounds like you are confused. You can prove that the evolutionary theory is just a collection of different principles that came together to form the theory. No one is arguing that. That in no way, shape, or form 'debunks' it. Because something has not been proven to your satisfaction has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Proof is not negotiable. You can't debunk proof. We have all been able to debunk the things you are arguing,therefore, it is not proof."

Well obsviously missed the small post the simple law of physics, check it out first, and the come with a rebuttal on that, and i will counter it. I dont need something to proven to my satisfication, but it does not be prove based on scientific facts. None of the evolution theory is.


You say "Well, if that's all you were doing, then yes. If you research a little on how the debates usually work in UM, you will see that the most convincing arguments come from members who use their own words to present an idea, and then use cited sources to back up the claim. You are doing the opposite. Cutting and pasting, and then when we disprove the article, or book page, or whatever, you get defensive and only then do we hear your personal opinion. Although, the opinion still has nothing to do with what you are trying to disprove."

It funny, you claim to disprove articles, which one may i ask. mutations, speciation, natural selection, not one of you has refuted it, instead you pernally attack me, thinking thats your rebuttal. well im still waiting for counter arguments on those articles. I may not have the articulate ability to give my point, therefore i use the authors and poeple of qualification first. so you can see clearly where i am coming from. So far, give me one post which has anwsred micorevolution, or macro, and show me one post where i have not refuted the original claim by aquatus and others. please show me.

You say "Fossils can't prove the sudden appearance of complex organisms. They prove the existence of complex organisms. If you told us about the forgeries and something about how evolutionists operate I would be shocked? Probably not. I know there are people out there who will plant evidence, create false evidence, and flat out lie to make it look like evolution has been proven. Just like the opposition. But those occurrences do not in any way detract from the undeniable facts that have been proven that support the Evolutionary theory. The probability of an amino acid 'coming by chance' argument is one used frequently on Creationist websites, and I think you even misunderstood that one. The idea is simply put, that the chances of proteins being supplied with the correct 400 amino acids to be 'meaningful' is a probability of 10 the 120th power. Source But again, I think you have definitions mixed up, because you used improbability and impossibility interchangeably, and that is just simply incorrect. And where did you see that evolutionists dare not debate your material? Do you have a source for that? I would love to see where one scientist back down from using fact to disprove belief."


This i find funny, you see evolution claims that, we started off as prmitive organisms, single celled, and formed complex organism, using the various mechanims of evolution. The cambrian stage, which if often called the cambrian explosion proves other wise as stated by leading authority on the subject. but hey you wont care about that will you. i can show you fogeries and i will just wait. You say "The idea is simply put, that the chances of proteins being supplied with the correct 400 amino acids to be 'meaningful' is a probability of 10 the 120th power. Source But again, I think you have definitions mixed up, because you used improbability and impossibility interchangeably, and that is just simply incorrect" incorrect on what basis, is that waht you call a rebuttal, lol no elaboration. do you know at point mathamtics says something is impossible, is far less than the probability of 10 to the power 120th. Would you like the true figure. You know maths is a true science, these probability figures cant be rejected on the basis that it does not suit you.

You say"You haven't even made it to the rebuttals department yet. Nothing you have stated, or copied, is even worth arguing with. It is all propaganda, whether it is from a book or a website, that is based on BELIEF. Creationists are known for twisting facts, omitting truth, and generally making stuff up to suit their agenda, so they are not credible. No one is whining here except for you, claiming that we are all coming down on you and you are sick of it. We don't need to cut and paste the rebuttals, if that was what we were interested in, we would have just gone back to the other 308263502865 posts about evolution and creationism and reread it. It has all been argued before, and so far, not one person has been able to disprove evolution to a satisfactory point to convince the scientific community or even the general public. You say you are prepared, but all you have is other people's opinions, a few lines of copied Creationist mumbo jumbo and a BELIEF that you are confusing as FACT. You have nothing new, and you can't even sort out what is fact and what is propaganda, so unfortunately, it looks like you bit off way more than you could chew when you came into these forums boasting and acting so superior."


LOL. what have you provided so far as an argument against my articles nothing. you say the material i have posted is twisted and so on show me where then. Just cause you make empty claims like true evolutionist, does not make your fairy story come true.you very good a claiming things, that i have posted lies, ut you fail to point a single one out. I rest my case there, you have nothing to refute with, what ever you will bring, i have anwser, and i know your evolutionist sources.

yeh yeh, yeh.


I am having to post this again, try and keep up or read everything i post pls.



Oh yeh if i was just rying to prove the existence of God I would not start at evolution, but at this a simple law of physics.....

anythign limited, is always due to source a which unlimited.

EVerything we know the whole universe, even energy, which can transfer from thing to another, or change its form, will eventually dissapate, therefore also limited. So if everything we know is limited, it must be due to a source which is unlimited. (i.e God)

Also, just to be clear:

1. We do see an enormous number of intermediate forms. Everything is an intermediate form.
2. How punctuated a sudden appearance of many species (and by sudden I still mean many millions of years) is relates to the scarcity or abundance of available niches and energy sources.
3. They do.
4. Again, obviously, they do. We've witnessed it. The cause and factors involved in the speed of the appearance of some lineages is what he was arguing about.

i knew i would get an empty reponse like that one, now provide the proof, coz u just been hustled on this one. Send me the proofs and watch how it get broken down right infront of your eyes.

be back in hour, cheers people.

Huh? There is no Law of physics that even states what you're stating. Even if the universe expands into a dead, cold universe the amount of mass in it will be the same. Nothing says anything about "limited or unlimited".

hehe i know. I got all tempted to show this proof of God to my friend with physics degree and demand to know why he hadn't informed me that basic laws of physics prove the existence of God. He would probably think I had gone a little loopy though and tell me to go take a lie down.

It does not matter ghow you look at it, the universe keeps expanding, or it may even collapse on itself. either way the whole universe is limited and the energy within it. therefore anything thats has limitations, it must be due to a source which is unlimited. its straight forward. now i will come back and continue. Thx

That's not a physical law, it's not even coherent.

Which particular families would you like to see? You do understand the notion that everything is an intermediate form, yes?



I didn't ask you. I was explaining why it happens. 40 million years is more than adequate with even the slowest rates we postulate.



We have a clear fossil record showing transition from single celled life up through more complexity, divergence and extinction. We also see divergence in particular families that survived extinction events and filled unoccupied niches just as one would expect. Simple really.



We've made species ourselves through applied selection. And, no, I don't mean dosing fruit flies with radiation, I mean using applied selection such as different environments and different feeding of them. If you simply feed fruit flies different forms of food in as little as eight generations they diverge enough that they can no longer produce offspring with each other. We've created species through animal husbandry. Plants have turned into a wealth of different species as we've carried them around the world and allowed them to adapt to new environments.

Read these then try an formulate your arguments again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

There is no correlation in what you are stating nor anything that says "limited must come from unlimited". It's nonsensical. A simple, and painfully obvious example, to stick with you "limited/unlimited" concept is that a "limited" thing must only originate from something equal or less "limited" not "unlimited". You're also taking for granted that there has to be something outside our universe to explain it, which isn't needed.

Nothing he has presented is coherent. Yet, we are the ones who aren't getting it or rebutting properly.

Ozi, do us all a favor and do a quick search in these forums for 'evolution' or 'creationism.'

Out of all the posts that come up, see all the crackpot Creationist theories and 'evidence' that has been proven wrong, and scratch all those from your list you pretend to have of irrefutable evidence.

If you have anything left after that, then we can talk.

Lol. we are limited, the sun is limited, the planets, the stars all of them, we a born from something which is limited. meaning that everything finishes and dies.Including the whole universe. Therefore the energy, the power and everything in the universe which will eventually diminish, mustbe due to source outside of it which is sustaining it and must be unlimited in power. Call it wat u want, but most people would call it a god.

this is just one way of proving the existence of God, there is no difinitive proof that God does not exist.

As for you intermediates, what intermediate form are you then, if everything is.


THE NAS'S ERRORS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FOSSIL RECORD

The National Academy of Sciences booklet suggests that the fossil record provides definitive proof of evolution, and even says, "So many intermediate forms have been discovered. . ." and refers to a "huge body of evidence." (Science and Creationism, p. 14) Yet, for some reason not a single example of an intermediate form is provided, even though the book let claims to present "the most important lines of evidence supporting evolution." (Science and Creationism, p. ix) A book making such a claim would be expected to detail the series of intermediate forms in question, and to respond to criticisms directed at the classic putative intermediate forms (such as Archaeopteryx). Yet, no such proof is given in the book, which merely attempts to convince its readers by means of vague words and abstract expressions.


1) A bony fish fossil dating back some 210 million years.
2) A frog fossil approximately 53 to 33.7 million years old.
3) A fossil crab approximately 55 to 35 million years old.
4) An echinoderm (starfish) fossil dating back some 135 million years.
THE FACT THAT LIVING SPECIES AND FOSSILS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD ARE TOTALLY SIMILAR IS VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION.
5) A spider fossil, some 355 to 295 million years old.
6) An approximately 300-million-year-old trionyx (tortoise) fossil.
The National Academy of Sciences' attempt to portray the theory of evolution as one for which there is so much evidence reminds one of a doctor who tells a moribund patient who is no longer capable of any movement at all that "You are so healthy, you could get up and go for a run if you wanted," just to keep his spirits up. It seems that the members of the National Academy of Sciences think that a self-confident tone would be enough to save their theory. Yet, what matters is not the tone or style employed, but rather concrete scientific evidence. It is an incontrovertible fact that scientific evidence testifies against Darwinism. Those evolutionists who have not lost their ability to evaluate the scientific evidence objectively accept that the fossil evidence does indeed speak against the theory of evolution. Indeed, this is a self-evident fact.

For example, Henry Gee, the editor of the journal Nature, says in his book In Search of Deep Time that "mountains of evidence" supporting the theory of evolution have not been discovered in the fossil record, and that, on the contrary, the evidence which does exist is evaluated by evolutionists according to their own preconceptions:

Many of the assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however baseless.

The reason for this lies with the fact of the scale of geological time that scientists are dealing with, which is so vast that it defies narrative. Fossils, such as the fossil creatures we hail as our ancestors, constitute primary evidence for the history of life, but each fossil is an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationship with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure. Any story we tell against the compass of geological time that links these fossils in sequences of cause and effect-or ancestry and descent-is therefore only ours to make. We invent these stories, after the fact, to justify the history of life according to our own prejudices.1

Looked at without evolutionist prejudice, it is clear that the fossil record conflicts with the theory of evolution on many points. Some of these areas are:


During the Cambrian Period, the Earth was suddenly filled with nearly 100 phyla. The fact that all these living things, which all possessed their own particular and unique physical structures, emerged without a common ancestor is clear proof that they were created.
1. Species and higher categories emerge in a very sudden way in the fossil record, fully formed in their distinct body plans. The intermediate forms claimed by the National Academy of Sciences are nowhere to be found. It has eventually been made clear that those fossils portrayed as transitional forms by evolutionists have been interpreted in a biased manner by scientists. None of the few fossils portrayed as intermediate forms has ever received wide acceptance, not even amongst evolutionists. The truth is that the evidence for these alleged transitional forms (species or genera such as Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus or Australopithecus) rests on evolutionists' comparisons of certain anatomical features of the extinct creatures in question with other species. Yet these comparisons are weak and superficial. Furthermore, the great differences between these so-called transitional forms and their so-called closest evolutionary relatives (between Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs, for instance, or Ambulocetus and ancient whales, or Australopithecus and Homo erectus) show that these are not transitional forms representing the gradual changes expected by Darwin. The more the fossil record grows, the more these huge gaps can be seen to be real and permanent.

2. The second area of conflict between the theory of evolution and the fossil record is that of stasis. It can be seen from the fossil record that there is no gradual change towards different physical forms, but rather a stability or lack of change.

3. The order of geological succession is also against the theory's expectations. The theory of evolution maintains that small evolutionary changes gradually accumulated. If this were true, we would expect that more primitive classes first experienced variation within themselves, which gradually led to different and more complex body plans. In other words, according to the theory of evolution, variation must come before differentiation. However, geological succession-that is, the fossils' positions in the geological strata-shows just the opposite: differentiation comes before variation. In the Cambrian Period, very different basic body plans appear all of a sudden, with no evolutionary ancestors lower down. Variations then follow these previously existing forms. The natural history of life is systematically from the top down, not from the bottom up, as Darwinist theory would have it.

Let us briefly examine this conflict between the theory of evolution and the fossil record.



The Ever-Missing Transitional Forms

Darwin imagined evolution to consist of gradual transitions from one species to another over long periods of time. There should therefore be an infinite number of intermediate links between species. Darwin stated as much in The Origin of Species:

... The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly 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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. 2
Again in The Origin of Species, Darwin stated that the sudden emergence of phyla with no evolutionary ancestors below them represented a serious difficulty:

… There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks...3
The serious difficulty referred to by Darwin in this passage continues to be a serious difficulty today. The evidence that he expected to show the evolution of one species from another is nowhere to be found. The fact that there are no transitional forms between species in the fossil record is so clear-cut that a great many evolutionists have been forced to admit it. A selection of these confessions follows:

Professor S.M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University:
The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured. . . . 'The majority of palaeontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin's stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.' . . . their story has been suppressed. 4
Professor of Philosophy and Zoology Michael Ruse:

One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record... There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged.5
Anthropologist Ian Tattersall and palaeontologist Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History:

The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history-not the artifact of a poor fossil record.6
Rudolf A. Raff, director of Indiana University's Molecular Biology Institute, and Indiana University researcher Thomas C. Kaufmann:


The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.7

Ernst Mayr, possibly the most prominent biologist of the twentieth century:

Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism . . . and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to