Evolution is Not Science

Hi Jet,Please don't post any more messages where the cut-n-pastes are longer than your own contributions. Cut-n-pastes should be short and play a supporting role in your argument, not *be* your argument. Those following your argument can click on the links as necessary.By the way, the reason your links are dead is because you've placed curly braces around them. Parentheses have the same effect. I've fixed your post for you, so the links are live now.--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

What sense does it make quoting evolutionary scientists appearing to tear down their own science? If they believed as these quotes make it appear then Creationists have science on their side and the rest of us have somehow gone astray.Your approach only proves that in any field with voluminous writing you can always find quotes to lift out of context and make appear to endorse what they clearly do not.You've introduced such a huge volume of material through cut-n-pastes that it makes no sense to try to address any significant portion of it. Replies have already grown so long as to defy analysis, let along normal attention spans, so I'll address just your first quote:

---

Jet cut-n-pastes from Harun Yahha:
A famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact even though he is an evolutionist: The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find - over and over again - not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.

---

Derek V. Ager is a geologist of the catastrophist persuasion, not a paleontologist. Without having access to the full text of the article (from The Nature of the Fossil Record in the 1976 Proceedings of the British Geological Association) it's impossible to tell what he was really saying, except that he's drawing analogs to his geological views in paleontological settings. The actual point he was making is not possible to say, but it is certain that he views fossils as a record of change over time supporting evolutionary theory.In case there is any doubt that you are misrepresenting Dr. Ager's views, this is from his 1973 book The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record:

This is a heady wine and has intoxicated palaeontologists since the days when they could blame it all on Noah's flood. In fact, books are still being published by the lunatic fringe with the same explanation. In case this book should be read by some fundamentalist searching for straws to prop up his prejudices, let me state categorically that all my experience (such as it is) has led me to an unqualified acceptance of evolution by natural selection as a sufficient explanation for what I have seen in the fossil record (pp. 19, 20). (Book Review: Old Traditions on Trial)

Sounds like he was already on to you guys. --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
Sorry Mark, but your post is little more than a rehash of material that has been rebutted and refuted so many times that to do so again would be a truly pointless endeavor. Your inability to grasp the enormity involved in the discussion of contrary perceptions of data and evidence from an highly intellectual point of view, coupled with your tremendous inability to engage in any sort of meaningful interlocution based upon the intellectual understanding of those scientists who are directly involved, not to mention your gross misunderstanding of the proper etiquette necessary for a productive intercourse and exchange of ideas, joined with your arbitrary dismissal of concepts that you obviously do not comprehend on the same level as the scientists who are engaged in the various fields of science, does make for a rather ordurous experience for anyone of an opposing view who may wish to engage you in discussion. Possessing a proclivity for verbosity is not necessarily a negative characteristic. I would, however, consider you the exception to the rule. Sorry!

---

Violation of rule 2 of the guidelines. This is your third warning for such a violation, so I'm assessing a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges. See you tomorrow night at 9 PM eastern time.--Percy (EvC Forum Administrator)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern. Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

---

Gee, Jet, when you decide to spread the abuse you really don't hold much back.Debaters here are required to treat those with whom they disagree with respect, or at least stick to the issues and avoid becoming personal. When you registered with this board you agreed to abide by its rules. If you don't like the rules you shouldn't participate here. If you feel I'm enforcing the rules unfairly then please contact me at Percipient@.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

So you contend that while no evidence disproves nothing, no evidence also proves the TOE?

---

It's important to keep in mind that there are two separate aspects involved:

• Evidence for evolution.
  ​
• Interpretation of evidence in an evolutionary context.

That evolution of species had occurred was first recognized in the early 19th century as the increasing differences of fossils from modern forms with increasing geologic depth was discovered, as well as the correspondence of particular fossils and geologic layers with one another.Theories of human evolutionary history represent an interpretation of sparse paleontological data in an evolutionary framework. Hominid fossils do not represent evidence for evolution, though they *are* consistent with it. Mark was saying that even if there were a complete absence of hominid fossil evidence, how could that represent a falsification of the ToE?There's no desire on the part of evolutionists to avoid the topic of abiogenesis, and the Origin of Life forum is expressly provided for discussion of this topic.The misimpression that evolutionists want to avoid the topic may stem from the typical reply to the oft-heard Creationist statement, "The theory of evolution is false because life could never arise from non-life." There's no choice but to point out the logical fallacy that demonstrating one impossible has little bearing on the other.

---

I have asked this before, but I shall ask it here again. Where is the raw scientific data showing the attempts made towards falsification of the TOE? I will request only five examples, for the convienence of the Evos.

​

1. That man evolved from extremely lower forms of life.

---

Morphological classifications based upon fossils and genetic similarity studies could have indicated that man and other living species are not at the top of a nested tree hierarchy. They instead confirmed that this view agrees with the data.

---

2. That evolution has, is, and shall continue to happen.

---

Examples of a few recently observed speciation events can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.

---

3. That the estimated age of the earth is sufficient time for evolution to occur.

---

In the late 19th century the paleontologists and geologists, who needed a timeframe of at least hundreds of millions of years, battled the physicists led by Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) who would grant no more than a 100 million years. That the battle was won by the paleontologists and geologists would be one piece of positive evidence since they received the time they felt they needed, and then some. I don't think anyone seriously questions whether a timeframe at least 45 times greater than that originally granted is sufficient.

---

4. That life evolved continuously after abiogenesis occurred, experiencing occasional explosions of new life.

---

Did you mean explosions of speciation? Anyway, the fossil record clearly indicates species coming into existence and then fading away with time.

---

5. That despite the continual abandonment of the scientifc guidelines that it must adhere to, the TOE still qualifies as a true and falsifiable scientific theory.

---

Need more information about how the ToE fails to follow the scientific method before I can comment.--Percy

When you visit a museum and see the fossil reconstructions you're looking at raw scientific data. The link I provided about speciation contained references to scientific papers, so you obviously didn't even follow the link. The books on evolution that most of us here rely upon here reflect the findings of scientific papers and journals. If you'd really like to see "raw scientific data" for yourself then I suppose you could find it in a university library.--Percy

You wanted "raw scientific data", I mentioned fossils, and what could be more raw than the actual fossils from the ground? I provided you a link with references to papers about observed speciation, you don't seem interested in those either. I'm willing to discuss any facet of evolution at the level of knowledge I possess. If you'd like to discuss anything I stand ready.--Percy

Jet writes:

---

Evos say they need no faith to believe in evolution. They claim they have the evidence, though they seem extremely reluctant to elaborate when pressed for that evidence.

---

The first evidence discovered for evolution, and still the most accessible and persuasive, is the fossil record. Mining, road construction and other activities related to the Industrial Revolution during the first half of the 19th century brought to light a fossil record of increasing differences from modern forms with increasing depth.Even if we had learned and discovered nothing else over the past two hundred years, this record of change over time is still sufficient evidence by itself for evolution, and it is the evidence that persuades me that evolution has happened.--Percy