Summations Only

Bs'dThat is evidence, until you get one. Then it is suddenly no evidence anymore.Let's see:

quote:

---

According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the age of the dinosaurs. Artists’ reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:

​

Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million yearstwo-thirds of their total historyas small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 318).

​

It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed. Again, however, Dr. Hubbard’s discoveries have thrown a monkey wrench into the evolutionary timescale.

​

However, a discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of Nature challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully intactand had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:

​

During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teethBH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or fingers] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).

​

To complicate matters, researchers reported in the April 18, 2002 issue of Nature, one of the premier science journals in the world, that they now have determined that the last common ancestor of extant primates existed (as dated by evolutionary dating methods) 85 million years ago (Tavar, et al., 2002). Since dinosaurs are supposed to have died out 65 million years ago, that means the primate would have lived with the dinosaurs for at least 20 million years. One of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Christophe Soligo of London’s Natural History Museum, stated in regard to the find: What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared... (see Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos, 2002). So much for the belief that mammals evolved just a tad later than the dinosaurs.

---

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
| American Scientist

Bs'dFor the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes.That is of course, because they don't.You are just throwing lies around.

Bs'dUnless you believe in "hopefull monsters", evolution is gradual."Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: David M. Raup - Wikipedia

Bs'dThey don't do that anymore. They did that for more than 100 years, saying that the fossil record supports evolution, while they knew very well it did not.In plain English we call that: "deliberate lying to the public."But Eldredge and Gould stopped the lies:" .... we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about."Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44And yes, that is really a bizar situation, a whole segment of science lying to the public in order to push evolution. That is not only bizar, that's disgusting! If Bigfoot should have left some proof that he had walked through you garden, for instance, you should have seen his footsteps in the snow, and there are no footsteps in the snow, then you know, then that is proof, that Bigfoot didn't walk through you garden.If evolution really happened, it should have left traces in the fossil record. There are now hudreds of millions fossiles in musea all over the world, and guess what: No evolution.That is strong proof of no evolution. No there is not. The people telling you that are the same type of people who lied to you for more than hundred years about the fossil record supporting evolution.The fossil records is in agreement with creation, and totally disproves evolution.And that is delightfull for me. As Dawkins confirms:"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. .... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dYes I do. It says that evolution took place in far away places, small isolated places, and the evolution there went relatively fast. And that, according to the PE theory, is the reason that we cannot find any proof for evolution in the fossil record, because it happened in small far away places, very fast.So the PE theory is an attempt to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record.This is what an expert says about the punctuated equilibrium theory:"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. 59Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
Robert ESo PE is the proof that there is no evolution to be seen in the fossil record, because if there was, there would be no need to come with forced explanations about why we cannot find any evolution in the fossil record.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dWhat part of the following is it that you don't understand?"we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

Bs'dIn those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis.An anonymus nobody posting some pics and stories on a debate board is not carrying more weight than big scholars who give their viewpoint.If anybody wants to overturn those evolutionistic scholars, he'll have to come up with at least the same grade experts. Not the ramblings of a nobody and some pictures."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.."Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.S.M. Stanley is an American professor, paleontologist, and evolutionary biologist at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. For most of his career he taught geology at Johns Hopkins University (1969-2005) He is best known for his empirical research documenting the evolutionary process of punctuated equilibrium in the fossil record.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins UniversityEdited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dThat is written under the quote, it speaks about the Bighorn basin. But that is very big finding place for fossils, and it is representative for the fossil record in general, because there you see exactly the same thing.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dWhat is a POE?

Bs'dAnd stasis is not "the history of evolution", it is the history of NON-evolution. For the truth I have the professional opinion of many big shot paleontologists. They all agree that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution. A lie about the assumption that the fossil record supported Darwinian evolution. His book The Origin of Species. In there he warns the reader 8 times not to look at the fossil record, because it does not support his theory. Really. We are no 170 posts into this debate, and NOBODY could show one quote where the meaning was different. Of course it is. The fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution is a BIG problem for evolution. And you don't believe that what this big evolutionistic scientist say about the fossil record is a fact? You believe they are lying? Or just plain wrong? You know better?? It just happens to be so that this discussion is about the fossil record, not about the universe. I don't interprete them, I just show what they themselves say. Namely that there is NO evolution to be found in the fossil record. Only if you believe in the time lines of the evolutionists. It shows that life didn't change since its creation, which is according to the evo's, about 500 million years ago:"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24The above points to creation, and not evolution, and that too is a big embarrasment for evolution, something which is admitted by evolutionistic scholars who know what they are talking about:"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. .... If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htmYou see, the facts fit creation like a glove, and are embarassing for evolution.Everything popped up 500 million years ago, with a bang, and no new species, no change, in 500 milion years! Well, you do think you're just an ape, right? And an atheist who'll think he can have some illegal benefit with very little chance of getting caught, will do so.Why should he not?Think: "The Seflish Gene". I have demonstrated that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely sudden appearance of species and stasis, non-change, non-evolution.I have shown that the fossil record totally supports creations, and knocks out evolution."The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then.""Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dTo prevent whining about "taking out of context", I give you the whole chapter of the master himself, our Charles, who devoted a whole chapter of his book to the imperfections of the fossil record. "Imperfections", because it didn't agree with his theory, therefore in his eyes it was imperfect.For those who don't feel like reading so much, the juicy parts are in yellow: CHAPTER X. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.

​

Read On the Origin of Species 6th Edition by Charles Darwin, Read free on ReadCentral.com [ Remove exceedingly long cut-n-paste from the above link. Please see link.

​

Eliyahu: In the future, please just excerpt the portions of interest. I've sent your cut-n-paste to you in a PM so that you can recover the portions you highlighted in yellow. --Admin ]As everybody can see, it is one long litany about how the fossil record goes against his theory.In the days of Darwin it was already known that the fossil record goes agains the evolution theory. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Remove long cut-n-paste.

Bs'dOK, it is not literally a warning.Look above to the updated post, and see how Darwin time and again, has to say that the fossil record is imperfect, because it does not conform to his theory.

Bs'dSo Darwin already saw that the fossil record did NOT support his theory, put posed serious problems for it.He goes as far as to say that "Those who believe that the geological record is in any degree perfect, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory."And therefore Darwin says that the fossil record is not perfect.However, now, more than 150 years later, we have many more fossils, hundreds of millions are in musea all over the world, and see what experts now say about the fossil record:"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

​

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46
Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theorySo the fossil record is good, it is Darwin who is imperfect."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. 59The fossil record is real, it is Darwins theory that is unreal.So Darwin was forced to say about ten times or more, that the fossil record is imperfect.However, it turned out there is nothing wrong with the fossil record, there is only a lot wrong wit the evolution theory.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'dBefore 500 million years ago, there was no life to speak of. One cell life forms started according to the evo's 3.5 billion years ago, but it only really took of 500 million years ago.And then, suddenly, with a bang, there were all the major type of animals.Really new concepts did not pop up in 500 million years.Like Dawkins says; there can be two explanations for this phenomenon: One is a faulty fossile record, the second is divine creation.Other options don't exist.So the fact of the matter is: The fossil record disproves evolution."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.
.
.
S. Bengtson on the Cambrian explosion:"If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766
Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm.
.
."The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then.""Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.
.
.

Bs'dMeaning that the fossil record, as is, does NOT agree with Darwin. What I believe is irrelevant.Here is what an expert says about that one:"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search .... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

​

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way."Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46.
"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. 59According to Eldredge, the fossil record is OK, it is the predictions of Darwin who are wrong.Exit Darwin..
.
.