Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
46 online now:
14174dm, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Stile (4 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 878,008 Year: 9,756/23,288 Month: 771/1,544 Week: 163/322 Day: 17/66 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 1 of 90 (1932)
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


I have recently completed an article exposing the sham behind the evolutionist's claims about the fossil record. This article is a little more abrasive than my others normally tend to be. But I feel strongly that evolutionists are employing a sleight-of-hand, and in many cases it is *willful* because they continue to hide this sleight-of-hand (see article) when presenting their "evidence" for evolution in the fossil record, even after being told about this undeniable truth of the characteristics of the fossil record.

Comments are certainly welcome. I will be back hopefully Monday, depending on how busy I am at work.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 01-11-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2002 7:48 PM Fred Williams has responded
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 01-11-2002 7:55 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-11-2002 10:53 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 7 by mark24, posted 01-12-2002 10:13 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 01-13-2002 1:13 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 15 by prionesse, posted 01-14-2002 6:27 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 19 by stonetool, posted 01-17-2002 4:44 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 6:44 AM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Budikka, posted 04-13-2003 1:48 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3820
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


Message 2 of 90 (1941)
01-11-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


From Mr. Williams page http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/fossil_illusion.htm:

quote:
The Slight-of-Hand
Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!

I suspect the vertebrates get the attention because the general population finds vertebrates to be more interesting than the invertebrates.

quote:
What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!

OK, let's look at the invertebrate 95%. That fossil record shows a certain population of organisms in the lowest (and oldest) rocks. As you go upsection (and uptime), you find diferent populations. Some organisms have disappeared, others have appeared. There has been a progression as time has passed.

Regardless of what caused these changes, the changes are very real. Even if these changes are a result of a series of special creations by God, it is still an evolution of the life forms on earth.

Moose

------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 01-14-2002 1:58 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 90 (1943)
01-11-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


And you completely ignore the genetic evidence for common descent that folks like Doolittle assemble. There is evidence of common descent in that record--especially the sea cucumber. Additionally, what is amazing about your entire argument is that you never cite a specific falsification available in the fossil record. You identify nothing that is inconsistent with evolution, but only a lack of fossils in populations that aren't likely to fossilize at the same rates as vertebrates. Of course there is some evidence that you haven't even bothered with:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm

If you want to say the fossil record is imcomplete no one is arguing with you because that is to be expected. But nothing in your 'article' identifies a key falsification of evolution.

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NimLore, posted 11-06-2002 9:48 PM lbhandli has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 90 (1944)
01-11-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I have recently completed an article exposing the sham behind the evolutionist's claims about the fossil record. This article is a little more abrasive than my others normally tend to be.

No!!! Fred? Abrasive? Impossible!

quote:
But I feel strongly that evolutionists are employing a sleight-of-hand, and in many cases it is *willful* because they continue to hide this sleight-of-hand (see article) when presenting their "evidence" for evolution in the fossil record, even after being told about this undeniable truth of the characteristics of the fossil record.

And this has gone undetected until you came along, eh? Do you really thing that they have not thought about these things? And, Fred, do you have any idea how difficult it would be to perpetrate a conspiracy among geologists?

Well, the essay is a bit of a laundry list of complaints, but perhaps we can look at a few. Even though I am not a biologist or paleontologist, I can come up with a few suggestions to improve on your essay.

You make a statement:

quote:
This problem has been exasperated by recent finds in China of highly advanced and extremely well preserved vertebrate life forms in the lower Cambrian strata. These fossils have collapsed the available time for the invertebrate to vertebrate transformation by at least 50 million years, to between 2 to 3 million years!. This is a blink of the eye in geological time (a period called the Cambrian Explosion), prompting the two primary Chinese scientists involved to bluntly admit that these fossils roundly contradict the theory of evolution.

Perhaps you could explain how the 3 million year figure is calculated. And you don't tell us where the 50 million year change came from either. These make fine assertions, but you don't exactly inspire much confidence just throwing these figures around. Perhaps you are not familiar with the following:

Cambrian Explosion

You are basically saying that the end of the "Cambrian Explosion" has been moved back 50 million years (it seems like it was less to me, but I don't have the references), but you fail to determine when it started. Since the Cambrian Period was only about 50 million years, itself, I'm beginning to think you are still confusing the Cambrian Period with the Cambrian Explosion. This is critical. It could very well be that the beginning must be pushed back further, as well; even (gasp) into the Proterozoic. The point is that the Cambrian Explosion is at least partly an artifact of an incomplete record, and some evolutionist are beginning to believe that it was not so much of an explosion at all. In fact, I remember my professors suggesting such a thing almost 30 years ago.

Furthermore, I think you confuse the first appearance in the fossil record with the actual original appearance of a phylum. They are not the same. Certainly vertebrates are being pushed back in time with new finds, but after all they are different vertebrates.

The fact that hard body parts are not found prior to the Cambrian Explosion and the fact that some of these organisms were not found until relatively recently after hundreds of years of fossil collecting, certainly point to the possibility that hard body parts played a role in the Cambrian Explosion. Or maybe it was just a coincidence that the CE and hard body parts came along at the same time, eh? If your suggestion that this is not a factor were true, then why don't we see some hard body parts earlier in the record?

Back to Fred:

quote:
What about this miniscule and fragmentary portion of the fossil record where evolutionists have been forced to spend so much of their time & energy?

Sorry, Fred, but paleontologists are not out to "prove" evolution as you seem to suggest. And there are a large number of them who deal with invertebrates. I've known experts on bryozoans and ostracods to name a few. Guess what ... they are virtually all evolutionists and no one is forcing them to study anything in particular.

Maybe more later. It might be good to discuss each point separately, however, as laundry lists are a bit tedious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by gene90, posted 01-12-2002 2:01 PM edge has not yet responded

gene90
Member (Idle past 2379 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 5 of 90 (1975)
01-12-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by edge
01-11-2002 10:53 PM


quote:
What about this miniscule and fragmentary portion of the fossil record where evolutionists have been forced to spend so much of their time & energy?

If Fred's claim is true, why is it that universities otherwise not known for turning out paleontologists frequently send their geology undergrads through invertebrate paleo courses?

In checking undergraduate course catalogs of local universities, I found that the only paleo course one offers is invertebrate paleo. Another university offers general paleo courses but also offers a micropaleo specialty course, but no specialty vertebrate paleo courses.

The third university I checked offers a specialty invert paleo course and a course that combines plant and vert paleo.

The fourth has a general paleo, plant paleo, and dinosaur paleo.

My conclusion is that non-vertebrate paleontology is generally being stressed more than vertebrate paleo.

[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-12-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by edge, posted 01-11-2002 10:53 PM edge has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 90 (1981)
01-12-2002 3:37 PM


Fred: Your fundamental premise is wrong. A simple google search for evolution invertebrate fossil yielded several thousand results. A quick perusal of the top 50 sites shows there's a LOT of invertebrate research going on - and all of it shows evolution in action. We could easily just email some of the researchers for their views, but I don't feel like doing your research for you...

mark24
Member (Idle past 3752 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 7 of 90 (1997)
01-12-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


Please see original article for figures.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Exposing the Evolutionist’s Slight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record

Fred Williams
January 2002
Introduction
One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever slight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person. The purpose of this article is to expose this slight-of-hand, which will then dissolve the false illusion it creates. Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion exposed, the truth can clearly be seen – the fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution.

The Slight-of-Hand

Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less! What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!


Invertebrate transitionals;

< !--UB http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm -->http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm< !--UE-->

Consider the brachiopod Eocoelia from the Lower Silurian of Great Britain (Ziegler, 1966). We find two species both classified as Eocoelia based on the details of internal morphology. However, the shells of the older species are coarsely ribbed whereas the shells of the younger species are smooth (Ziegler, 1966). If we examine samples collected from geochronologically intermediate positions, we find a succession of Eocoelia that progressively reduced and ultimately lost the ribs (Ziegler, 1966). This morphologic progression can be illustrated both qualitatively with specimen illustrations and quantitatively by measuring rib strength and plotting the data as a series of histograms in stratigraphic order (Ziegler, 1966). Such sequences are the preserved remains of temporally successive populations of organisms that morphologically changed from one species into another. All of these intermediate forms thus qualifies as transitional fossils. The only logical conclusion is that such successive populations were produced by normal reproductive processes. That is descent with modification (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266-269).

Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).

< !--UB http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites -->http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html#trilobites< !--UE-->

Showing Trilobite transitionals.

Pikaia gracilens (Science & Earth History, Arthur N Strahler, 1999, p405)

< !--UB http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html -->http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html< !--UE-->

The Cambrian lobopods occupy a transitional morphological position between several living phyla. The oldest known lobopod from the Early Cambrian is Xenusion. This organism bears similarities to both palaeoscolecid worms and to living onychophorans and tardigrads. Furthermore, lobo-pods also have morphological features in common with the arthropods, particularly with peculiar Cambrian forms such as Opabinia and Anomalocaris. Recent redescription of Opabinia has also disclosed the presence of lobopod limbs strongly suggesting a lobopod to arthropod transition. The discovery of a Cambrian gill-bearing lobopod reinforces this conclusion. These forms fall nicely into a transitional position between extant phyla.

Another very important group of Early Cambrian fossils is represented by a wide variety of tiny cap-shaped and scalelike skeletal elements. It is now known that many of these belonged to slug-like animals that bore these hollow mineralized structures like a dermal armor. Two well-known, and well-preserved, examples of this group of organisms are Wiwaxia and Halkieria. Called the Machaeridia or the Coelosceritophora, these organisms are mosaics of phylum-level characteristics, and their taxonomic affinity is a matter of present debate. A strong case can be made for the assignment of at least some of these taxa to the Mollusca. However, a relationship to the polychaete annelid worms is also strongly suggested by some workers, as with Wiwaxia. The taxonomic confusion associated with these scale-bearing slug-like animals, and with the lobopods, is consistent with their stratigraphic position at the base of the Cambrian metazoan radiation.

&, Of course, from one of your own references, no. 18. A bit of an own goal, this one.

< !--UB http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/abstracts/issue991202/abstract991202_518.shtml -->http://www.natureasia.com/get.pl5/abstracts/issue991202/abstract991202_518.shtml< !--UE-->

“An early Cambrian craniate-like chordate

Jun-Yuan Chen, Di-Ying Huang and Chia-Wei Li

Since the identification of the Lower Cambrian Yunnanozoon as a chordate in 1995, large numbers of complete specimens of soft-bodied chordates from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan (southern China) have been recovered. Here we describe a recently discovered craniate-like chordate, Haikouella lanceolata, from 305 fossil specimens in Haikou near Kunming. This 530 million-year-old (Myr) fish-like animal resembles the contemporaneous Yunnanozoon from the Chengjiang fauna (about 35km southeast of Haikou) in several anatomic features. But Haikouella also has several additional anatomic features: a heart, ventral and dorsal aorta, an anterior branchial arterial, gill filaments, a caudal projection, a neural cord with a relatively large brain, a head with possible lateral eyes, and a ventrally situated buccal cavity with short tentacles. These findings indicate that Haikouella probably represents a very early craniate-like chordate that lived near the beginning of the Cambrian period during the main burst of the Cambrian explosion. These findings will add to the debate on the evolutionary transition from invertebrate to vertebrate.”

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE! The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.

See above, for a few invertebrate examples.

The remarkable completeness? Says who? A non creationist reference please. This claim is in direct contradiction of the undicovered inferred fossils you outline elsewhere in this article.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The distribution of fossils is illustrated in the pie chart in Figure 1. As can be seen, complex invertebrates constitute 95% of the fossil record. The remaining 5% consists mostly of plants & algae, where again we find no fossil evidence of evolution, whatsoever. In the small portion that includes insects, again we find no fossil evidence of evolution, whatsoever.

The problems only get worse for the evolutionist. Not only is there no sign of evolution leading up to the complex invertebrates, but also missing in action are the enormous number of transitionals that must have existed to bridge the gap between invertebrates and vertebrates. The transformation from invertebrate to vertebrate would have been a major event in the earth’s evolutionary history. Yet the fossil record does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation! This problem has been exasperated by recent finds in China of highly advanced and extremely well preserved vertebrate life forms in the lower Cambrian strata. These fossils have collapsed the available time for the invertebrate to vertebrate transformation by at least 50 million years, to between 2 to 3 million years! This is a blink of the eye in geological time (a period called the Cambrian Explosion), prompting the two primary Chinese scientists involved to bluntly admit that these fossils roundly contradict the theory of evolution.7


The transformation formation from invertebrate to vertebrate requires only one species. But as you point out, only 0.0125% of organisms are vertebrates. You have gone to great pains to point out to your readers how small a slice of the pie vertebrates take up, and then tell us that vertebrate evolution was “a major event”. How so?

There are three transitionals I have given above. Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, & Haikouella lanceolata, Two of the transitionals are in one of your own references, so why does the fossil record “does not leave a single shred of evidence for this enormous transformation”?

< !--UB http://oldsci.eiu.edu/geology/Jorstad/3560/stratstuff/sauk.htm -->http://oldsci.eiu.edu/geology/Jorstad/3560/stratstuff/sauk.htm< !--UE-->

The earliest trilobites were found 550/540 m.y.a. Giving a potential 10/20 million years, of evolvable time, not 2-3 million.
Regarding Haikouella lanceolata. The Cambrian started 540 million years ago (new dating system), Haikouella lanceolata was discovered in rock 530 million years old. That’s 10 million years of “explosion” to evolve in. Also it’s not a fish, as the Boston Globe states. This is deliberately misleading.

Interestingly, modern sea squirts are chordates,
< !--UB http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/urochordata.html -->http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/urochordata.html< !--UE--> , they outwardly exhibit no more complexity than a jellyfish.

Regardless, there is no reason why a simple tunicate like animal cannot evolve into a slightly more complex organism in 3 million years, let alone 10/20 million.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The nightmare gets worse for the evolutionist when we consider that the wide diversity of body plans that suddenly appear in this brief 2 to 3 million year window are markedly distinct morphologically from each other. This disparity of body plans is followed by stasis, where there are no incremental alterations to the body plans through the entire history of the fossil record up to the present! This is precisely what one would expect if special creation were true, and a stark contradiction to evolution.

< !--UB http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0810011.htm -->http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0810011.htm< !--UE-->

“Both the lowering of the Earth's surface temperature and the evolution of many new types of animals could result from a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide and a rise in oxygen caused by the presence on land of lichen fungi and plants at this time”
"An increase in land plant abundance may have occurred at the time just before the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, when the next Snowball Earth period failed to occur because temperatures did not get quite cold enough," Hedges says. "The plants conceivably boosted oxygen levels in the atmosphere high enough for animals to develop skeletons, grow larger, and diversify."

Despite your strawman, Fred, namely, that the current theory of evolution only allows gradualism, made in a later paragraph. The current theory allows rapid evolution, as well as stasis.
The Pre Cambrian organisms were environment limited. The low oxygen levels would not allow building of exoskeletons/shells of the size required of the Cambrian organisms, nor allow for the necessary growth.

So, because of the extra oxygen, many new body plans quickly evolved & filled & created new niches. Once filled, true competition & natural selection began to have effect. Organisms that evolved body plans sans true, harsh competition would now begin to suffer. In effect, decimation of less fit phyla occurred. This is entirely within evolutionary theory, & is reflected in the fossil record. (Wonderful Life. Stephen Jay Gould.)

The Cambrian organisms displayed an evolutionary radiation because their environment changed favourably, allowing the previously "impossible" adaptions. This “post extinction radiation” is reflected many times in the fossil record, the Triassic radiation, after the granddaddy extinction, at the end of the Permian. The mammal/bird radiation after the K/T extinction etc.

The question remains, why did the Cambrian explosion give rise to so many phyla, when none of the others did?

Crucially, in none of the other major extinctions was there such a large environmental change in the form of atmospheric oxygen, from such a low level, to a much higher level, the oxygen levels 600 m.y.a. were thought to be only 1% of current levels < !--UB http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/time9.html -->http://www.handprint.com/PS/GEO/time9.html< !--UE--> . In actuality, the explosion never technically followed an exinction at all. The existent Phyla were not complex “extinction hardened” phyla.
The receding ice age at (roughly) the same time allowed terrestrial photosynthesisers to (re?) colonise the land, greatly increasing oxygen output. This, combined with the very few multicellular body plans that existed in the Pre-Cambrian, allowed a radiation into body plans & niches that had NEVER existed before. By contrast, for example, birds would be in direct competition with pterosaurs in many occupied niches, & could only truly diversify into those niches after the pterosaurs became extinct, whereas the carnivorous, Cambrian Opabinia was the first of its type, & suffered no such environmental restraints, & nor did any of its contemporaries. What new phyla could compete with highly adapted birds for the “pterosaur niche”?

In any other major extinction/subsequent radiation, the radiations were made by MANY EXISTENT COMPLEX PHYLA (by & large), if any new phyla were to “try their luck”, there were in direct competition with highly advanced surviving organisms, & not just the “lucky beneficiaries” of the early Cambrian. Cambrian fauna were not the adapted, multicellular product of extinction in the first place. In short, the Cambrian explosion was started with VERY FEW SIMPLE PHYLA.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

So all that is left is a sliver of a corner of the fossil record, the vertebrates. This is the rabbit in the hat for the evolutionist. The bulk of this sliver is made up of fish, where we again find no sign of evolution whatsoever. A small remainder of this miniscule sliver is left for the land-dwelling vertebrates. Of the land-dwelling vertebrate species unearthed, 95% are represented by a bone or less. Yet this is where the evolutionist concentrates all his efforts to "show" to his audience that "the fossil record supports evolution"! Their audience is completely unaware that all of the examples they are being shown come from an incredibly puny section marred with incomplete data. They are conveniently left in the dark regarding the other 99.99% of the data, from a portion of the fossil record that is far more complete, that shows NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER! This is their slight-of-hand. This is a sham. This is brainwashing. There is no other way to put it.

The transitional forms say they do, if you had researched properly, you could have saved yourself this paragraph.

Regarding terrestrial vertebrate evolution & your claim that there is “NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER!”

Lets take the evolution of the horse, from:

Hyracotherium (Eohippus), to Orohippus, to Epihippus, to Mesohippus, to Miohippus, to Parahippus, to Merychippus, to Pliohippus, to Modern Horse.

Why is this sequence inferred? In all cases, a progressive reduction in side toe functionality appears, with increased emphasis on the middle toe. The side toes become increasingly vestigial, as the middle toe becomes more prominent, ending up as the hoof. Not enough?

A similar progression is seen in size, skull shape, & teeth forms.

Still not enough? The side toes on modern horses are represented today as splints at the back of the shins. The process can be seen in the “flick book” of horse evolution. If this sequence never occurred, why do the side toes appear in modern horse embryos? Also, they are present occasionally in adult horses, exactly where the ToE PREDICTED they would be, replacing the splints. (Science & Earth History. Arthur N. Strahler 1999)

“NO HINT OF EVOLUTION WHATSOEVER!” I think not.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The Sliver Considered

What about this miniscule and fragmentary portion of the fossil record where evolutionists have been forced to spend so much of their time & energy? We would expect that due to the subjective nature of such fossils, many examples put forth from this group by evolutionists would be either 1) disputed by other experts in the field, or 2) later disproved by new, more complete data. Indeed we have an abundance of examples of both of these expected outcomes.


Well, 1/ It is, & 2/ It has & can be. What’s your point? Scientific methodology allows this.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Take Archaeopteryx, for example. Many evolutionists hail this fossil bird as an intermediate between dinosaur & bird. Yet a decent number of leading bird experts, who are themselves evolutionists, roundly dispute this claim. The alleged ape-man ‘Lucy’ is another example championed by many evolutionists, but disputed by other qualified evolutionist scientists. Renowned anatomist Lord Solly Zuckerman once scornfully denounced A. afarensis as nothing more than a “bloody ape”! He became so frustrated with the claims of his fellow evolutionists that he declared there was “no science to be found in this field at all”

Regarding Archaeopteryx.

Present In Dinosaurs But Not In Birds: Pubic peduncle, long bony tail, abdominal ribs.

Present In Birds But Not In Dinosaurs ; Pygostyle, bony sternum, furcula (wishbone), hypotarsus, feathers.

Present In Archaeopteryx ; All of the above.

Dr. Alan Feduccia needs to go back to the drawing board. He may understand birds, but he needs to brush up on dinosaurs.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

There are also many examples where later fossil data overturned prior misconceptions. Consider Mesonychid, an alleged whale ancestor. In a recent debate between evolutionist Pigliucci and creationist Walter Remine, Pigliucci confidently touted Mesonychid as an ancestor to the whales. He was apparently unaware that two years earlier the original champion of the Mesonychid link had retracted it because additional fossils falsified the original assessment.

So someone wasn’t aware of a conclusion of scientific methodology? So what? This is evidence against evolution? You say yourself Pigliucci was apparently unaware of the new evidence. How is this “sleight of hand" on his part? New data overturning prior misconceptions is a GOOD thing. Just not for creation scientists who’s “facts” are already long established.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

For more than 20 years Ramapithecus was proudly displayed in museums across the country as man’s first direct ancestor, based entirely on jaw and teeth fragments! When a complete jaw was found, evolutionists where forced to admit that it was actually a relative of the orangutan! There are many more examples, such as the now debunked Nebraska man, the chordate Pikaia as a vertebrate ancestor, the eventual removal of Neanderthal man as a human ancestor, etc.

Again, you misunderstand scientific methodology, no one “forced” anyone into anything. Opinions changed because of new evidence.

Regarding Pikaia:

< !--UB http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/shale/ppikaia.htm -->http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/shale/ppikaia.htm< !--UE-->

PLEASE NOTE. Pikaia is not a vertebrate - no one can say if this particular creature is our direct predecessor. Nevertheless, Pikaia is a representative member of the chordate group from which we undoubtedly arose. It resembles a living chordate commonly known as the lancet.

Please reference you Pikaia sentence. I wasn’t aware it was debunked.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

What about dinosaur fossils? Take a look at Figure 2, taken out of the most recent copy of the Britannica Encyclopedia. All of the light red lines and the dashed lines refer to fossils that have NEVER BEEN FOUND! These lines represent "inferred" fossils! In other words, evolutionists cannot offer a single example of an ancestor of the dinosaurs.

Finally, even when we do find well preserved, intact fossils, a great deal of speculation is still required to determine its place in an evolutionary tree, especially when we do not have any of the soft anatomy available to analyze. In his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, Dr Michael Denton wrote: “Because the soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure.”15 He gave as an example the Coelacanth, a fish once believed to have gone extinct over 100 million years ago. For nearly a century the Coelacanth had been considered an ideal intermediate between fish and terrestrial vertebrates based on its well-preserved skeletal fossil remains. But after one was discovered alive and well in 1938, analysis of the soft anatomy quickly revealed that it had all the characteristics of a fish, not the characteristics of an intermediate the evolutionists had hoped for.


That Coelacanths were reckoned to be an intermediate between fish & amphibians is Dentons straw man, not yours, Fred, but still a straw man.

The Crossopterygians contain two groups, the rhipidistans (from which the first amphibians are thought to of evolved from), & the coelacanths. The coelacanths “were far removed from the main line of evolution to the land vertebrates”. (Science & Earth History, Arthur N. Strahler, 1999, p455).

I suspect the confusion arose with the discovery of the coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae, which was RELATED to a group thought to be ancestral to amphibians (rhipidistans).

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Answering the standard evolutionist objections

Some evolutionists argue that since soft-bodied organisms do not fossilize as easily as invertebrates with hard shells, we should not expect a good history of the transition that would have produced the complex invertebrates. But this excuse no longer carries much weight, even with many evolutionists, since discoveries in recent years have yielded a wealth of soft-bodied organisms from early Cambrian and pre-Cambrian strata.


An unreferenced claim. “Some” evolutionists might argue soft bodied organisms fossilise well, on a regular basis, which is your inference. When you reference this claim, you might wish to ask the question of “some” evolutionists as to why no dinosaur fossils have been found complete with skin & flesh. Or amphibians, or Archaeopteryx, or hominids etc, etc ad infinitum.

The reason dinosaurs, mammals, fish etc. are found as fossil bones & not as entire organisms is precisely BECAUSE soft bodies do not fossilise well.

To give an idea of the scale of difference ; we found conodont teeth for 127 years before finally finding a fossilized conodont animal in it’s entirety. Conodont TEETH are extremely common in late Cambrian to Triassic rocks, the entire soft body including teeth is extremely rare. (Life, Richard Fortey, p132).

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Numerous soft-bodied specimens from the Ediacara fauna, organisms in pre-Cambrian strata, have now been found in more than 30 localities worldwide.16 These creatures are so diverse and unusual that many evolutionists recognize that they cannot possibly be ancestors to the complex invertebrates, and consider them an evolutionary dead-end. This fauna also appears in the fossil record suddenly with no trace of ancestors whatsoever, compounding the problem for evolutionists even further.

Why “diverse & unusual” should preclude them, rather than making them front runners, is beyond me.

Also, it’s not as clear-cut as you think.

< !--UB http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4426 -->http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4426< !--UE-->

“Lophotrochozoans. The ancestral lophotrochozoan may have looked slug-like, creeping across the seafloor on a muscular foot. The Ediacaran Kimberella may be an early representative, and the armored halkieriids from the Lower Cambrian are possibly a subsequent development. A surprising discovery is fossil embryos, from the Lower Cambrian of Siberia, that are reasonably attributed to the halkieriids. From a halkieriid-like stock, it may be possible to derive not only the molluscs, but more surprisingly two more bodyplans, specifically in the form of the brachiopods and annelids.”

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The Burgess shale fossil formation in Canada also consists of numerous soft-bodied fossils. Since this fossil bed was discovered, a rich diversity of over 60,000 detailed soft-bodied specimens have been unearthed.

More recently an impressive cache of soft-bodied fossils was discovered in China (called the Chengjiang fauna). One of the discoverers of the early Cambrian vertebrate fossils at Chengjiang stated: “Since the identification of the Lower Cambrian Yunnanozoon as a chordate in 1995, large numbers of complete specimens of soft-bodied chordates from the Lower Cambrian Maotianshan Shale in central Yunnan (southern China) have been recovered.”18 [emphasis mine]
Some evolutionists who realize the soft-bodied excuse no longer carries weight are invoking strange ideas in an attempt to deal with this mammoth problem of the sudden arrival of such complex and diverse life. One evolutionist has proposed that all the animal phyla before the Cambrian explosion had nearly identical genes, and that “differential usage of the same set of genes” accounted for the extreme diversities of body plans.19 There are two primary problems with this: 1) he offers little evidence to support his hypothesis; 2) even if true it would only serve to push the problem back in time - it would then fail to explain why the fossil record left absolutely no trace whatsoever of such a massive accumulation of all this shared genetic information.


The “soft bodied excuse” is still for you to explain. Why only bones & not flesh? Also, the reason they are only recently being found, & only in great numbers IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS is testament to the special requirements for fossilisation of these orgainisms.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Another just-so story offered up by some evolutionists in an attempt to shrink the enormous gap between invertebrate and vertebrate is the claim that many “new” vertebrate structures are derived from just a few “new” embryonic cell types. Again this has very little evidence to support it. It also is very difficult to image how such a mechanism could arise via random mutation alone. Selection would be impotent since such a mechanism would not logically be expected to have a selective advantage until virtually intact. Regardless, this still would not solve the enormous dilemma of the complete lack of ancestors leading up to the complex invertebrates that represent 95% of the entire fossil record.


Expression of genes via neutral drift would account for increased brain (bud) size. Selective pressure is not necessary until increased size has use. We have unused brain mass ourselves. There is absolutely no need for both increased brain size, & increased brain function to occur at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

In Their Own Words
Even if we ignore the evolutionist’s slight-of-hand described above, their own words reveal convincingly that the fossil record does not support evolution. Consider the following predictions (or expectations) of the fossil record if evolution were true:
1) Gradualism
2) Simple to complex
3) Clear-cut lineages
4) Identifiable common ancestors


Straw man. You have presented Darwinian evolution, long since abandoned by evolutionists, as indicative of modern evolutionary theory, & destroyed it.

1/ Modern evolutionary theory supports rapid evolution as the main mechanism, though doesn’t preclude stasis/gradualism.

2/ The fossil record does show simple to complex transitions. Single celled bacteria to colonial bacteria (stromatolites). Prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic single cells to multiple celled organisms. Simple tissued organisms to complex organisms with tissues arranged as organs, & organisms with organs arranged in organ systems.

The reverse is not precluded, & is even a prediction. For example, simple tunicate chordates. Organisms with vestigial traits, no eyes, blind, atrophied limbs etc.

3/ There are clear cut molecular lineages, backed up by taxonomic, & morphological traits.

4/ See 3/

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Now consider the predictions of the fossil record if special creation is true:
1) Sudden appearance
2) Fully formed
3) Stasis
All of the predictions for evolution have failed miserably, while all of the predictions for creation have been overwhelmingly borne out by the evidence. For each of the individual predictions above, it is very easy to find an evolutionist scientist who substantiates the creationist viewpoint for that particular prediction. On the following web page I have provided such substantiations from leading evolutionists. For brevity I have included two quotes for each expectation/prediction.

1/ Sudden appearance. The creation model predicts sudden appearance of ALL kinds within a 6 day genesis.
They do not appear at the same time. Bacteria appear over 3 billion years ago, & the Cambrian fauna, a little over half a billion years ago. Fishes about 440 million years ago. Amphibians about 360 million years ago. Reptiles about 280 million years ago, etc, etc.

Creationists will argue that the flood mixed them up & hydrodynamic processes distributed them, settling out in different level strata. But they patently weren’t. Dense, shelly molluscs should be right at the bottom of the fossil record, 3 billion years plus ago, whilst single celled bacteria should ONLY settle in still water, & be present in upper strata only. The slightest current would cause them to remain in suspension. Yet they are at the lowest portion of the fossil record?!

Similarly sized Eocene mammals & similarly sized Jurassic reptiles should be found together, but aren’t.

2/ Any viable organism at any time is “fully formed”. What would you accept as a transitional? Even transitionals are “fully formed”, a bacteria is “fully formed”. What is the point of this statement?

3/ The creationist model does not predict stasis. You can argue with the baraminologists if you wish.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Evolutionist Quotes on the Fossil Record

It is truly amazing that evolutionists, including those whom I cited in the preceding page, still unabashedly tell the world the myth that the fossil record supports evolution.


I wonder why!? Given your arguments.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Conclusion – Be prepared to dismantle the Illusion!!!

Darwin wrote that in order for his theory to be true, the number of transitional links "must have been inconceivably great".21 A century and a half later, the tons of fossils we have since unearthed have not produced even the slightest inkling of what must exist if evolution occurred on earth. When we examine the most intact and thorough portion of the fossil record, a portion that represents more than 99.99% of the entire fossil record, we do not find a single one of Darwin’s necessary links, not even a one that evolutionists can speculate on. None. Nada. Zippo. Creationist Dr Duane Gish summed it up very well:

“All of the complex invertebrates appear fully-formed without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms linking one to the other.... If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found! Even more convincing, if that can be said, is the total absence of intermediates between invertebrates and fishes, and the total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for each major class of fishes... It is physically impossible for millions of years of evolution to take place, producing a great variety of major types of fish, without leaving a trace…The evidence from the fossil record ... has established beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has not taken place on the earth.”22 [emphasis in original]


I have presented invertebrate transitionals. Also, Darwin was not privy to punctuated equilibrium. See your straw man, above.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The fossil data has clearly produced a nightmare scenario for the evolutionist. There is no way one can examine the fossil data and come away with the conclusion that the fossil record supports evolution. Yet this is what virtually every evolutionist continues to do. They find themselves pushed into a very tight corner by the fossils, but make their escape with a slight-of-hand, erecting an illusion by scraping for bits & pieces from this tight corner of the fossil record and making it seem these bits & pieces tell the story of the entire fossil record. Once out of the corner, the evolutionist storyteller is free to spread the illusion to a mostly unsuspecting public. We should be ready to quickly expose this fallacy and tear down the illusion erected by the evolutionist storyteller. It’s time to hold the evolutionists accountable for this deception.

When an evolutionist presents his vertebrate transitional, if you deal with his specific claim without pointing out the slight-of-hand, you are playing right into the illusion. While I believe we should continue to address specific claims, we should first demolish the illusion being erected. Begin by asking the evolutionist why he is presenting you with a piece of data that comes from such a fragmentary and incredibly miniscule portion of the fossil record. Show him the chart in Figure 1. Ask him why he will not show you examples of evolution that fall within the other 99.99% of the chart, a portion that not only represents the bulk of the data, but a portion where the data is far more robust and complete. Then return to their original claim that “the fossil record supports evolution”. Ask them how they can make such an audacious claim given the fact that they cannot provide you with even a shred of evidence where it should be the most abundant, from that 99.99% portion they had originally failed to mention to you.


I have given examples that fall within the “99.99%”. Nevertheless, that they can show it as well in the 0.01%, adds credence to evolutionary theory, not detracts from it.

Lots/most of the record is incomplete, but others are remarkably complete. See the Horse example of vertebrate transitionals, above.

quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion is exposed, it is much easier to deal with the fragments of bones the evolutionists scrape out of that closet in the basement of the large 50-story museum. We would expect many of these speculative claims to fail even loose standards, and indeed this is exactly what occurs. When the entire scope of the fossil record is considered, the nature of these speculative claims quickly comes into context with clarity. The only reasonable conclusion that remains is clear and undeniable: The fossil record sharply and powerfully contradicts evolution.

You have presented us with typical creationist fare.
Articles such as this are EXACTLY the reason science opposes creation “science”. In an attempt to garner more support for your ideas, straw men, omitted relevant information, & outright deception has been put to the layman, who has no means to refute your claims.

It is not a search for Truth, but for more souls.

Mark

[Edited on 28/8/02 to remove unclosed quotes]

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-13-2002]

[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4428 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 8 of 90 (2004)
01-13-2002 4:42 AM


To add some additional fuel to Mark's conclusion, the following:

quote:
From Fred Williams "Exposing the Evolutionist’s Slight[sic]-of-Hand With the Fossil Record":

In his book “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, Dr Michael Denton wrote: “Because the soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure.”15


Since you make a big deal about Dr. Pugliucci and Mesonychid, I thought you'd find Dr. Denton's newest book interesting. In "Nature's Destiny" (1996), Dr. Denton states:

quote:
it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. (from the introduction to Nature’s Destiny, page xvii-xviii).

If you're going to claim that "new data" should be taken into consideration in the debate, my suggestion is that "Evolution: Theory in Crisis" has been superceded by the author and is no longer appropriate defense of creationism.


derwood
Member (Idle past 432 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 9 of 90 (2014)
01-13-2002 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


From Williams' article:

"This problem has been exasperated by recent finds in China..."

Yes - we must watch out for those enraged problems!

LOL! What amazing scholarship!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 4795 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 10 of 90 (2023)
01-13-2002 6:44 PM


The major misdirection I see in Fred's rant is the sleight-of-hand (not "slight-of-hand") wherein he makes much of the relative frequency of invertebrate vs. vertebrate fossils. Most marine sediments are made of invertebrate fossils, which make up a significant portion of the Earth's crust. One might conclude, if one didn't know better, that there aren't many vertebrate fossils. In fact, there are millions. There are so many that there aren't enough paleontologists to survey all the ones existing in museum collections.

Fred doesn't make this clear. Because he makes much of the relative numbers of invert and vertebrate fossils, I'm not sure he knows that there are millions of known vertebrate fossils. One shouldn't jump to conclusions, and assume dishonesty here; ignorance is also a good possibility.

Likewise, one can draw either conclusion from Fred's assertion that there are no evolutionary transitions in inverts. There are many, some of which are even mentioned by Stephen Gould, the proponent of punctuated equillibrium. (forams and ammonites)

One clue might be obtained by a visit to Fred's website, where his discussion of evolution is a good hint at his knowledge base on the subject.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by edge, posted 01-13-2002 10:19 PM The Barbarian has not yet responded
 Message 39 by Pogo, posted 07-03-2003 5:59 PM The Barbarian has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 11 of 90 (2032)
01-13-2002 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by The Barbarian
01-13-2002 6:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
The major misdirection I see in Fred's rant is the sleight-of-hand (not "slight-of-hand") wherein he makes much of the relative frequency of invertebrate vs. vertebrate fossils. Most marine sediments are made of invertebrate fossils, which make up a significant portion of the Earth's crust. One might conclude, if one didn't know better, that there aren't many vertebrate fossils. In fact, there are millions. There are so many that there aren't enough paleontologists to survey all the ones existing in museum collections.

I've often wondered where Fred got the numbers that these percentages are based on. So, Fred, did you count the fossils or something? And just what is the significance of the numbers? Isn't one of a species enough? I mean, why count all of the diatoms (or whatever the heck they are)in the cliffs of Dover?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by The Barbarian, posted 01-13-2002 6:44 PM The Barbarian has not yet responded

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 3412 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 12 of 90 (2086)
01-14-2002 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Minnemooseus
01-11-2002 7:48 PM


I don’t have much time today, but I’ll tackle a few and hope to get to more later. Comments to Moose, Larry, Edge, & Gene.

quote:
Moose: “There has been a progression as time has passed.”

Moose, this is a myth that informed evolutionists no longer accept. Note my comment to RetroCrono in another forum here, and Percipient’s follow-up.

"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet

“I believe that our failure to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress…represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history” – S.J. Gould, ‘The paradox of the first tier: an agenda for paleobiology’, Paleobiology, Vol 11, No 1, 1985, p 3

Percipient: “Your point about the fossil record is worth emphasizing again. The Newell and Gould quotes warn against the mistake of interpreting the fossil history in the geologic column as a record of progress, but it is an easy trap to fall into, more so for laypeople I expect than scientists.”

Larry, I find Morton’s paragraph on what a transition is very revealing as to the problem. If he can’t know for sure what is in a direct line of decent, how can he then know for sure its *near* a line of decent? The problem is that there are no clear-cut lineages despite the fact we have unearthed billion upon billions of these organisms, over a million species in all. It would seem there would be some solid evidence somewhere of their ancestors. If there were evidence in this vast cache of data, you would think my evolution biology textbooks would mention them. They don’t.

quote:
Edge: “And, Fred, do you have any idea how difficult it would be to perpetrate a conspiracy among geologists?”

I do not think it’s a conspiracy. I don’t think evolutionists got together and said, “hey, let’s not tell them about that 99.99% of the fossil record where we find little or no evidence.” I think they do it on an individual basis, and I happen to believe many are willful about suppressing this information. The public is led to believe the fossil record supports evolution, and are invariably given examples out of that tiny sliver of the record my article talks about. The public is not told about the portion that yields a big blank.

quote:
Edge: “Perhaps you could explain how the 3 million year figure is calculated. And you don't tell us where the 50 million year change came from either.”

In addition to the National Geographic cited, also see this from the Boston Globe article I reference: “And, because his [Chen] years of examining rocks from before the Cambrian period has not turned up viable ancestors for the Cambrian animal groups, he concludes that their evolution must have happened quickly, within a mere 2 or 3 million years.”

Regarding the 50 million year gap, see http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/111vertebrates.html

I actually had another reference, and forgot to include it in my article. Where the heck is it? I’ll try to track it down.

BTW, the gap used to be believed to be 100 million years (Romer ’66). 100 mil is still the gap between jawless and jawed: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/vertintro.html

quote:
Gene: ‘If Fred's claim is true, why is it that universities otherwise not known for turning out paleontologists frequently send their geology undergrads through invertebrate paleo courses?

This is a non-sequitur. Just because there are many courses on invertebrate paleontology does not mean there are many examples of evolution of the invertebrates from the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-11-2002 7:48 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 2:24 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded
 Message 14 by lbhandli, posted 01-14-2002 6:05 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

edge
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 90 (2089)
01-14-2002 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
01-14-2002 1:58 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
I don’t have much time today, but I’ll tackle a few and hope to get to more later. Comments to Moose, Larry, Edge, & Gene.

Moose: “There has been a progression as time has passed.”

Fred: Moose, this is a myth that informed evolutionists no longer accept. Note my comment to RetroCrono in another forum here, and Percipient’s follow-up.

"The old Darwinian view of evolution as a ladder of more and more efficient forms leading up to the present is not borne out by the evidence.” - N.D. Newell, Why Scientists believe in Evolution, 1984, p 10, American Geological Institute pamphlet


Sorry, Fred, that's not what Moose meant. There is a progression of fossil assemblages present in the record. You have never explained this.

quote:
Edge: “And, Fred, do you have any idea how difficult it would be to perpetrate a conspiracy among geologists?”

I do not think it’s a conspiracy. I don’t think evolutionists got together and said, “hey, let’s not tell them about that 99.99% of the fossil record where we find little or no evidence.” I think they do it on an individual basis, and I happen to believe many are willful about suppressing this information.


And noone exposes this willful suppression of facts until Fred comes along? Nonsense. Geologists are an independent lot and generally like to create arguments. This would be a good one. If I could disprove evolution, I'd jump so fast that your head would spin.

quote:
The public is led to believe the fossil record supports evolution, and are invariably given examples out of that tiny sliver of the record my article talks about. The public is not told about the portion that yields a big blank.

That's because the fossil record does support evolution. Do you have a better way of explaining the record?

quote:
Edge: “Perhaps you could explain how the 3 million year figure is calculated. And you don't tell us where the 50 million year change came from either.”

In addition to the National Geographic cited, also see this from the Boston Globe article I reference: “And, because his [Chen] years of examining rocks from before the Cambrian period has not turned up viable ancestors for the Cambrian animal groups, he concludes that their evolution must have happened quickly, within a mere 2 or 3 million years.”


Indeed that is a possibility. But there is no evidence for when the changes started. Chen's lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Just because the Cambrian Period started 3 million years before Chen's fossils doesn't mean that is when the organisms began to change. Didn't you read the article that I referred you to? It is very possible and even likely that the Cambrian Explosion is strictly an artifact of fossil preservation.

quote:
BTW, the gap used to be believed to be 100 million years (Romer ’66). 100 mil is still the gap between jawless and jawed:...

There are lot's of used-to-be's. Such as creationists used to believe that plate tectonics didn't happen. Now they think it happened at an astonishing rate and that microevolution indeed occurs, also. So what?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 01-14-2002 1:58 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-14-2002 6:39 PM edge has not yet responded

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 90 (2099)
01-14-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
01-14-2002 1:58 PM


quote:

Larry, I find Morton’s paragraph on what a transition is very revealing as to the problem. If he can’t know for sure what is in a direct line of decent, how can he then know for sure its *near* a line of decent?

Given all of the lines of evidence for common descent, your avoidance of all of the areas where there is solid evidence is amusing. Are the specific lines correct? Maybe not, but what you haven't provided is a falsification. You have provided an argument that our understanding is incomplete, but nothing that contradicts evolution.

quote:

The problem is that there are no clear-cut lineages despite the fact we have unearthed billion upon billions of these organisms, over a million species in all. It would seem there would be some solid evidence somewhere of their ancestors. If there were evidence in this vast cache of data, you would think my evolution biology textbooks would mention them. They don’t.

Actually there are very clear lineages, just for invertebrates as often. I'm not even sure what you are complaining about here given the great deal of fossil and genetic evidence amongst vertebrates. Are you somehow trying to argue that invertebrates came about in an entirely different way? And what about Doolittle's discovery with the Sea Cucumber and a fibrogen like gene?

Cheers,
Larry


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 01-14-2002 1:58 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

prionesse
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 90 (2105)
01-14-2002 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


I'd just like to reply to the sections of your article concerning paleoanthropology (my specialty):

The alleged ape-man ‘Lucy’ is another example championed by many evolutionists, but disputed by other qualified evolutionist scientists. Renowned anatomist Lord Solly Zuckerman once scornfully denounced A. afarensis as nothing more than a “bloody ape”!

But then Zuckerman, at the time of his initial analysis, had never worked with the original specimens, just casts. Also, since you cite the Ivory Tower (1970), A. afarensis had not been discovered at that point. The first A. afarensis specimen recognized as such was found at Hadar in 1973 (kneejoint AL 129-1), and the species was not formally coined until 1978 (correct me if I'm wrong). So, I take it Zuckerman was referring to the South African A. africanus, not A. afarensis. Zuckerman was very much a minority in his conclusions regarding A. africanus, especially after the Piltdown fraud was exposed.

Regards,
Prionesse

------------------
“That which does kill us makes us stronger”
Friedrich Nietzsche
“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
Jeseph Joubert
http://www.geocities.com/prionesse777/


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 6:55 PM prionesse has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020