Did you refuse to read message 5 by RAZD?? He disproved your supposed point. He gave you an example that shows gradual change. Are you incapable of reading? Are you incapable of comprehending?
Bs'd
It is the post of Razd against all the evolutionists.
I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough.
So back to the real paleontologists: They all sing in unison that there is NO evolution to be seen in the fossile record, only stasis and sudden appearance of new species.
That rips apart Darwins prediction that when more fossiles would be found, his theory would be validated.
It shows that evolution never happened.
In order to give an explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence the PE theory was made up.
But this is what an evolutionist expert says about that one:
"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."
Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59
Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
So back to the real paleontologists: They all sing in unison that there is NO evolution to be seen in the fossile record, only stasis and sudden appearance of new species.
Don't you ever worry that you might ... y'know ... end up burning in Hell while Satan spits the word LIAR! in your face for all eternity?
Only if I was religious, and if I lied as much as you do, it would worry me.
And no, I'm not trying to make the quote say the opposite, everybody with two working braincells can see that the quotes say what I say they say, namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record [...] So, this quote for instance: "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Except that he's talking about the fossil record of one particular locale (the Bighorn Basin) and one particular time (the Early Eocene). Obviously he's not saying that there are no transitions to be found in the entire fossil record, he's not insane or a dirty stupid liar.
It is the post of Razd against all the evolutionists.
Oh, I think I can find a few evolutionists who would agree with RAZD that there's paleontological evidence for evolution. Like, oh, a few dozen national academies of science.
"Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision." --- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).
So back to the real paleontologists: They all sing in unison that there is NO evolution to be seen in the fossile record
What a dumb lie. Let's see what song paleontologists actually sing in unison, shall we?
"Evolution is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory. Evolution is a fact in the sense that life has changed through time. In nature today, the characteristics of species are changing, and new species are arising. The fossil record is the primary factual evidence for evolution in times past, and evolution is well documented by further evidence from other scientific disciplines, including comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and studies of viral and bacterial diseases." --- The Paleontological Society
"The fossil record of vertebrates unequivocally supports the hypothesis that vertebrates have evolved through time, from their first records in the early Paleozoic Era about 500 million years ago to the great diversity we see in the world today. The hypothesis has been strengthened by so many independent observations of fossil sequences that it has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity." --- Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
In order to give an explanation for the total lack of fossil evidence the PE theory was made up.
According to the people who actually made up the PE theory, you are lying. Gould, for example, stated under oath in McLean v. Arkansas that there were many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record, and said "So it's not true to say that punctuated equilibrium is just an argument born of despair, because you don't see transitional forms."
Hmm, who to believe about Gould's work, Gould himself, speaking under oath and penalty of perjury, or a creationist who keeps getting caught telling dumb lies?
So far you didn't get any further than saying: "Your quotes are lying".
You are lying about what Coyote said. That is not a quote from Coyote, you made it up.
With that you implicate that the big evolutionists from whom these quotes are coming are lying.
You are lying about what Coyote meant. That is not what he implied, you made that up.
Oh, by the way, I hope we can get this debate above the level of calling each other a liar.
But you are a liar. And this is very evident: your lies are not subtle; you are, not to put too fine a point on it, not very good at lying. So if you don't want people to remark on what a shameless witless pointless liar you are, then you should stop lying.
This should be enough to settle the whole evolution vs creation debate.
It's hard to believe a few out-of-context quotes could settle the entire debate. I think you need to provide a few of your own arguments.
Bs'd
I don't think so. The quotes I'm bringing show beyond all doubt that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely stasis and sudden appearance.
This is totally incompatible with evolution, and totally supports creation.
What else is there to say?
So there we have it: NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis.
Your quotes do not really support this conclusion, do they?
Yes they do. Absolutely, totally, and completely. It seems you didn't get the message of those quotes, so I'll repeat some of them for you:
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.". Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
"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."Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59
"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 paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed." Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore. He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, the co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory. One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
There is A LOT more where this came from, see HERE
Gould and Eldredge argued against gradualism, not evolution itself.
Of course they don't. They wouldn't be evolutionists if they did, wouldn't they?
And therefore, I nowhere claim they argue against evolution.
I don't really have a problem with you quoting Gould and Eldredge, even out of context like this,
In context, out of context, it doesn't matter, because the context does not in any way alter the meaning of the quotes.
So the context is irrelevant.
but you need to develop your own arguments and show how their statements support your premise. You are using their arguments as if Gould and Eldredge themselves have reach the same conclusion as you and that is what is dishonest.
Gould, Eldredge, and a lot of other evolutionist paleontologists, have reached the exact same conclusion as me concerning the fossil record, namely that is does NOT show evolution, but only STASIS, and sudden appearance.
There is nothing dishonest about that.
Let's hear your own personal arguments to see if you even have a clue about what the issues are.
I'm not a paleontologist, so my personal arguments on the fossil record are irrelevant.
Even if I was, it would be said that because i'm a creationist, my arguments would not be valid, so I don't bother with my arguments.
What I do is I show what big shot evolutionists say about the fossil record, because you cannot argue with them.
The best one could claim that Eliyahu got from the quotes that he likely got from some other creationist site ... is confusion.
Bs'd
I can understand that those quotes confuse you, because they go against your world view, and lead to cognitive dissonance.
Certainly anyone who states that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles is confused at best, possibly ignorant or deluded regarding the actual papers (getting the quote mines second hand) or at worse deranged or just plain lying.
Right. However, NOWHERE do I state that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles.
So what you are doing is attacking a straw man, what is what people usually do when they don't have any real arguments.
Well in that case there's a huge gap --- more of a bottomless abyss, really --- between the bit of Eliyahu's post where he quotes Gould and Eldredge, and the bit where he writes "So there we have it: NO evolution".
Bs'd
No gap whatsoever. I just totally agree with Gould, Eldredge, and many others, that there is no evolution to be found in the fossil record.
He needs to fill that gap by explaining why the "implications" of Gould and Eldredge's work
I'm not talking about their implications, I'm talking about their observations of the fossil record.
Those observations show us that the fossil record does not show any evolution, but rather the opposite; sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors, and then STASIS during their whole stay in the fossil record.
are in fact the exact opposite of what Gould and Eldredge thought they were: why Eliyahu concludes "So there we have it: NO evolution" and that their writing "rips apart the evolution theory" when they write "In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record" (Gould) and "My version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s" (Eldredge).
We agree on what the fossil record shows; NO EVOLUTION, we don't agree on their other conclusions.
Re: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
You may be able to take quotes out of context and dishonestly make them say that, but how do you account for the fact that the scientists who are being mis-quoted say that creationists are mis-quoting them?
Bs'd
Dishonest evolutionistic scientists.
They're being polite: creationists are lying to you. And you are trying to pass those lies on to us.
The simple facts are: The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.
After science lied to the public for about 150 years, Gould and Eldredge had the courage to risk it all by pointing that out to the world, and they made up the PE theory, so that people could keep on hanging on to the evolution theory.
But of course, it still is an enormous blamage for both science and the evolution theory, so evo's can't handle it very well when you show them the facts.
When you show them the exact statements of high profile evolutionists, they say that you are a liar by just repeating their statements.
This of course is total nonsense, but they just don't have anything better.
However, the fact remains: The fossil record shows that evolution never happened.
It shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of new species without any linkage to supposed predecessors, and then during their whole stay in the fossil record STASIS, non-change.
. .
"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56 Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.
I'm not talking about their implications, I'm talking about their observations of the fossil record.
Those observations show us that the fossil record does not show any evolution, but rather the opposite; sudden appearance of new species without any link to supposed predecessors, and then STASIS during their whole stay in the fossil record.
Sure and then the marmot wraps the chocolate in alu foil.
Yea i don see any evolution either these creatures where clearly carved out of wood by Odin then had life breathed in to them.
But you dont need fossils just to prove the concept of evolution, all you have to do is look at the genetic evidence, retro vial insertions, where a virus inserted itself in to the dna of the host at a random spot, and by a lot of luck that got passed on to the creatures offspring. If evolution where not true then there should be no chance of a retro viral insertion in the same place of the genome in both us and say chimps, but there are and not just a single example but multiple. In the same way you should not see the same insertions in other species that clearly had no common descent to humans and you dont see those insertions as expected.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
Re: The fossil record conclusively demonstrates evolution
I give exact quotes, nothing changed about them, nothing distorted, and what those quotes say, and what those evolutionists say, is that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance without any link with supposed predecessors.
What is your actual source for the quotes -- did you get them off a creationist website\source or did you get them directly from the articles cited?
If the former then you don't really know if you are giving exact quotes, and if the later than you are committing the sin of omission.
And those are the simple facts. You evo's better get used to them.
Curiously we are used to them -- both in their proper context and in their misuse by creationists.
The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwin, and is fully in line with creation.
several points here:
you are wrong about contradicting Darwin, as Dr A has pointed out already, and
Darwin is not evolution, his theory of origin of species by natural selection is but a part of the overall study of evolution
it's 2014 and it has been a while since Darwin wrote his book - do you think science is that stagnant?
Darwin was wrong about some things, like the way hereditary traits were acquired and passed
Darwin being wrong does not mean that evolution is not and has not occurred
It appears that not only have you not read the articles in question, but that you haven't read Darwin's book as well. It appears that you are woefully ignorant of evolution.
I could go on, but it should not be necessary.
Suffice it to say that any biologist that you mention this to will most likely laugh at your pompous ignorance. Because they know this claim is false, so perhaps your time would be better spent actually learning what evolution is about -- that is the way you fix ignorance.
It is the post of Razd against all the evolutionists.
I think there are 2 possibilities for the post of Razd, one is: It is totally made up out of thin air, two: It is on the same level as the piltdown man and the Nebraska man, and it will be exposed as a hoax soon enough.
So now you are going to insult me rather than deal with the points I made -- how typically dishonest creationistic of you. My opinion of you just dropped. A lot.
Look long and hard at that last one -- when you hold an opinion or belief that is contradicted by actual evidence then that is the what you are choosing to be.
You might also look at
The first defense is to attack the messenger.
Sadly, for you, ad hominems are not refutations.
Your apparent inability to answer my first post Message 5 means that you do not know how refutation works in science. Denial is not refutation, ignoring evidence is not refutation, insulting people is not refutation.
No, I would not be happy about that, and no, that is not what I'm doing.
Typical. I write 1200 words directly to you describing why you are wrong, and you respond to this short piece of rhetoric to someone else.
I give exact quotes, nothing changed about them,
You are not being accused of changing them, you are being accused of asserting they are saying something they are not (OK, I will accuse you of perpetuating a dishonest edit to the text later on). You asserted they are saying 'NO evolution, but sudden appearance and stasis. ', but instead what they are saying is 'not normally gradual evolution, but punctuated by comparatively long periods of stasis' - which is a possibility Darwin acknowledged 100 years prior to Gould.
nothing distorted, and what those quotes say, and what those evolutionists say, is that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, and sudden appearance without any link with supposed predecessors.
No they don't. Which is why the paleontologists you quoted actually accept, as a fact, that life on earth has changed over time. Indeed, even creationists before Darwin thought that life on earth changed over time (catastrophism - there were several creation events separated by catastrophes, Noah's being the latest.)
As I have already explained (and a token amount research on your part would confirm) that the punctuated equilibrium evident in the fossil record disconfirms phyletic gradualism as the normal mode of evolution.
It does not disprove evolution, it confirms it, as those same people you quote say elsewhere. See Message 8 for more details.
And those are the simple facts. You evo's better get used to them.
Your quotes are about as old as I am. I am probably more familiar with them than you and have long grown 'used' to them.
Its funny how creationists think they can disprove a scientific theory by selectively quoting people talking about it. Its this urge to find the right chapter and verse to show it is all nonsense. But that's not how we really go about establishing facts. If Darwin can be quoted as having written 'Evolution is just a parlour game me and Emily used to play that got out of hand', that still would not disprove evolution. You need to refer to the actual evidence and make inferences from that.
The fossil record flatly contradicts Darwin, and is fully in line with creation.
Hahaha. No, it doesn't contradict Darwin. Not in any important ways. It obviously contradicts some things he said, but anybody writing anything based on the fossil record in the 19th century has been wrong about something.
It relentlessly confirms evolution, and disconfirms a singular special creation with a singular near extinction event.
quote:Evolution is a theory of organic change, but it does not imply, as many people assume, that ceaseless flux is the irreducible state of nature and that structure is but a temporary incarnation of the moment. Change is more often a rapid transition between stable states than a continuous transformation at slow and steady rates.
Gould -A Quahog is a Quahog
Oh look,there's that same paleontologist/evolutionist saying NOT that there is NO evolution but that change is a rapid transition between stable states. Strange, almost what we've been telling you is this paleontologist's position all along.
quote:For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. (It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.)
Gould again, emphasis mine. Once more it is clear from his words here that he is not saying that there is NO evolution. Instead he is saying there is NO gradualism Exactly what I said earlier, right? That's from the Panda's Thumb. Isn't that something you quoted from in your OP?
Where is that quote in the essay? That important piece of context that blows your reading out of the water? Oh yeah, its right in the middle of the bit you quoted, but you neglected to quote that bit. Academic honesty and all, it's your responsibility to check your quotes at the original where feasible, rather than relying on websites. Let's look at what you quoted:
quote:Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. 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 almost never see the very process we profess to study. ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism
Where did my quote come from, giving his argument the important context that he's not talking about NO evolution but (generally) NO gradualism? Oh yeah, my quote is where those ellipsis (in red) towards the end are. Sir, I charge you with dishonestly removing important context that completely undermines what you think these people are saying.
Indeed, I was able to find this whole section on google books
So take a look and tell me these are the words of someone who would hold the belief 'the fossil record shows NO evolution'.
The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution
Oh, by the way, I hope we can get this debate above the level of calling each other a liar.
But you are a liar. And this is very evident: your lies are not subtle; you are, not to put too fine a point on it, not very good at lying. So if you don't want people to remark on what a shameless witless pointless liar you are, then you should stop lying.
Bs'd
I see my hopes were in vain.
If you don't mind I'm going to continue this debate with others.
Hm, I note that Message 5 is still unanswered but you reply to this ... why is that? Inability to argue real science? Or too much cognitive dissonance?
I can understand that those quotes confuse you, because they go against your world view, and lead to cognitive dissonance.
Cute. But your problem remains, because I have read the articles and I do KNOW what they said and why, and that they in no way demonstrate that evolution is not or has not occurred. There is no dissonance here, nor conflict with my worldview -- which you do not know but have to make up stuff about -- another form of lying.
Right. However, NOWHERE do I state that Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles.
Ah, the wormy equivocation starts already. You cite them as evidence, you quote them out of context, and you say that based on those statements you conclude that evolution did not occur, you do not provide any real evidence other than quotes which you cherry pick to suit your a priori conclusion.
If you aren't claiming that "Gould and Eldredge are saying evolution is disproven by their articles" then your argument is a spurious, and grabbed out of the air non sequitur ...
™ Version 4.2
(1)