Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Missing Trunk 2
[/align]
??One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.? Daniel I. Axelrod, ??Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,? Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.
??Evolutionary biology??s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven??t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?? Jeffrey S. Levinton, ??The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,? Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84.
??Granted an evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, and not an act of special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single member of any of the phyla in the Pre-Cambrian rocks remains as inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.? T. Neville George (Professor of Geology at the University of Glasgow), ??Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective,? Science Progress, Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.
b. Strange Cambrian fossils, thought to exist only in the Burgess Shale of western Canada, have been discovered in southern China. See:
L. Ramsköld and Hou Xianguang, ??New Early Cambrian Animal and Onychophoran Affinities of Enigmatic Metazoans,? Nature, Vol. 351, 16 May 1991, pp. 225??228.
Jun-yuan Chen et al., ??Evidence for Monophyly and Arthropod Affinity of Cambrian Giant Predators,? Science, Vol. 264, 27 May 1994, pp. 1304??1308.
Evolving so many unusual animals during a geologic period is mind-boggling. But doing it twice in widely separated locations stretches credulity to the breaking point. According to the theory of plate tectonics, China and Canada were even farther apart during the Cambrian.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
OK - if you think think a 'thorough' rebuttal is based on Straw man arguments...
I can go one better sir, here is a thorough rebuttal of your rebuttal LOL
A response to Ashby Camp's "Critique"
Your version of truth is LIES
Science Disproves Evolution
"Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science:"
Science and religon doesn't mix. One is faith and one is science. Two diffrent topics. One is based on fact the other is based on faith.
What type of fossil are you looking for? We have more evidence to support the evolution theory then evdence that goes against it.
Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations
Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community ?? organ-
isms become new species through modification over time. ??No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled ??New evidence for evolution;?? it simply has not been an issue for a century? (Futuyma, 1986).
"Patricia H. Kelley
Paleontological Society President, 2001-2005"
Science Disproves Evolution
very good discussion, I still gotta side with those who question the Evolution of man from ape. I like ape and I like human but I see huge if not some main piece of evidence missing to support the theory of evolution from ape.
Not to mention the primer or first steps or concepts even pieces of evidence from the very beginning were questionable in the evolution from ape theory.
On a side note, I have a strong urge to help the apes considering their current situation. I can see us being cousins of ape but not ape being our grandparents. I would really like to know as well though, if we come from ape why are they still in the trees. And if we don't come from ape, then what or where even who made us.
Also on a side note can some one educate me as to when man as human man showed up? Is it 6000 B.C. or 15000 B.C. or some other time? Also how old are the oldest known ape bones/fossils.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by funiman111
I dont need to see something to know that it exist.
Well... i know this thread isnt about the existence/inexistence of God, and i dont want to hijack it, but i must point that, interestingly enough, skeptics, atheists and such denies the existence of God because He cant be seen...
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadSativa
very good discussion, I still gotta side with those who question the Evolution of man from ape. I like ape and I like human but I see huge if not some main piece of evidence missing to support the theory of evolution from ape.
Not to mention the primer or first steps or concepts even pieces of evidence from the very beginning were questionable in the evolution from ape theory.
On a side note, I have a strong urge to help the apes considering their current situation. I can see us being cousins of ape but not ape being our grandparents. I would really like to know as well though, if we come from ape why are they still in the trees. And if we don't come from ape, then what or where even who made us.
Also on a side note can some one educate me as to when man as human man showed up? Is it 6000 B.C. or 15000 B.C. or some other time? Also how old are the oldest known ape bones/fossils.
Hi Madsativa,
Humans didn't actually evolve from Apes - both Apes & Humans share a common ancestor and the two lineages separated between 5 and 8 Million years ago into the ancestors of Chimps and Gorilla and our own ancestoral line the Hominids.
To complicate things more you have similar hominids like Neanderthals (arguably a sub-species to homo sapiens) who were around as recently as 28,000 years ago - but co-existed at the same time as species of Homo Sapiens (modern himans like us which have been around 100,000 to 28,000 years ago).
The Cro-Magnon culture for example were around about 40,000 years ago. They were tool makers, artists and had musical instruments!
So anatomically modern humans have been around for at least 50,000 years - but maybe up to 100,000 years! even so we are a still a little different to Homo Sapiens from even 30,000 years ago - we have lighter bone structure and smaller molar teeth for example - but are generally very very similar.
Hope that helps! As we discover more fossils the tangled web of modern human evolution becomes clearer all the time, hence the very generalised numbers.
Science Disproves Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by funiman111
"Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science:"
Science and religon doesn't mix. One is faith and one is science. Two diffrent topics. One is based on fact the other is based on faith.
They don??t mix in their respective applications. It is true that while science is the study of the universe from a strictly natural perspective, it cannot be equal to a religion that depends on divine revelation from the creator of that universe to learn facts that science is not equipped to study.
Quote:
What type of fossil are you looking for?
Fossils that show the gradual change of a species to an entirely different species, as evolution requires.
Quote:
We have more evidence to support the evolution theory then evdence that goes against it.
Where is that evidence? So far what passes for evidence is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking based primarily on similarities that don??t prove evolution.
Quote:
Resistance to evolution stems in part from misunderstanding science and how it is distinct from religion. Science and religion provide different ways of knowing the Earth and universe. Science proceeds by testing hypotheses and thus is restricted to natural, testable explanations
Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community ?? organisms become new species through modification over time. ??No biologist today
would think of submitting a paper entitled ??New evidence for evolution;?? it simply has not been an issue for a century? (Futuyma, 1986).
"Patricia H. Kelley
Paleontological Society President, 2001-2005"
There is a lot of debate in the scientific community. The information I am sharing reflects that debate. There have been many papers claiming new evidence for evolution. That is one of the main arguments I get all the time; the claim that the information I am sharing is outdated because of all that new information.
When the two models of origins are compared with the facts of science, evolution loses and creation wins. For example, the first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant??it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down. Now if the overall amount of energy stays the same, but we are running out of usable energy, then what we started with was not an infinite amount. You can't run out of an infinite amount. This means that the universe is and always has been finite. So it must have had a beginning.
The law of causality tells us that whatever happens is caused, so what caused the universe to begin? It is [speculatively] possible that the big bang is simply the latest in a series of explosions that destroy all evidence of what came before. But that only backs the question up a few steps to "What caused the first explosion?" It is also [speculatively] possible that the steady state theory is right, that the universe had no beginning and is creating hydrogen from nothing to maintain energy without running down. But this explanation is contrary to the evidence and the law of causality.
There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. In the case of the origin of first life, either it came about by spontaneous chemical generation without intelligent intervention, or by the intervention of an intelligent being through special Creation.
Evolutionists believe that life began in a spontaneous way from nonliving chemicals by purely natural processes. Shortly after the earth was cooled enough to allow it, they tell us, the combination of simple gases like hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and carbon dioxide reacted to form elementary amino acids, which in time developed into DNA chains and finally cells. Of course, this is said to have taken several billion years and the extra energy of the sun, volcanic activity, lightning, and cosmic rays were needed to keep the process going. Experimentation begun by Stanley Miller arid Harold Urey has attempted to reconstruct these conditions and has had success in producing various amino acids needed for life. From this, much of the scientific community has concluded that the spontaneous chemical generation of life from a pre biotic soup is the way life began.
There are, however, some very good reasons to reject this view. First, the early earth conditions necessary to produce life are just as likely to destroy it. The experimental work has shown that no oxygen can be present for the reaction to work. Also, the energy needed from the sun and cosmic radiation are damaging to the very substances produced. Under the conditions required for life to have arisen spontaneously, it is more likely that the elements would be destroyed faster than they could be produced. Even if the right chemicals could be produced, no satisfactory answer has been given for how they could have been arranged properly and been enclosed in a cell wall. This would require another set of conditions altogether.
What could explain the sudden appearance of life and also provide for the informational organization of living matter? If we apply the principle of uniformity (analogy) to the question, the only cause that we know routinely does this kind of work in the present is intelligence. The reasonable assumption is that it also required intelligence to do it in the past. Uniform experience proves this to us and, as Hume said, "As a uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact" that the information inherent in living things required an intelligent cause. Since it is not possible that we are speaking of human intelligence, or even living beings in the natural sense, it had to be a supernatural intelligence. Once it is admitted that there is a radical disjunction from nothing to something at the beginning of the universe, there can be little objection to the idea of another intervention when the evidence clearly points to it.
But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in ??The Origin of Species,? "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 150 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]
Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:
??Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution??non-change??has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.? [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]
What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:
??The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
??1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
??2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]
The fossil evidence clearly gives a picture of mature, fully functional creatures suddenly appearing and staying very much the same. There is no real indication that one form of life transforms into a completely different form.
Now that we have new evidence about the nature of the universe, the information stored in DNA molecules, and further fossil confirmation, the words of Louis Agassiz resound even more loudly than they did when first written in 1860: "[Darwin] has lost sight of the most striking of the features, and the one which pervades the whole, namely, that there runs throughout Nature unmistakable evidence of thought, corresponding to the mental operations of our own mind, and therefore intelligible to us as thinking beings, and unaccountable on any other basis than that they owe their existence to the working of intelligence; and no theory that overlooks this element can be true to nature." [Louis Agassiz, "Contribution to the Natural History of the United States" in American Journal of Science, 1860]
There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.
Science Disproves Evolution
[align=center]
Missing Trunk 3
[/align]
Evolution predicts that minor variations should slowly accumulate, eventually becoming major categories of organisms. Instead, the opposite is found. Almost all of today??s plant and animal phyla??including flowering plants (c), vascular plants (d), and vertebrates (e)??appear at the base of the fossil record.
c. ??... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants.? Corner, p. 100.
A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ??Occurrence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab,? Nature, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796??797.
A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, ??Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab,? Geological Magazine, Vol. 88, March??April 1951, pp. 129??133.
J. Coates et al., ??Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range,? Nature, Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266??267.
Clifford Burdick, in his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. [See Clifford Burdick, ??Microflora of the Grand Canyon,? Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 3, May 1966, pp. 38??50.]
d. S. Leclercq, ??Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian,? Evolution, Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109??114.
e. John E. Repetski, ??A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America,? Science, Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529??531.
??Vertebrates and their progenitors, according to the new studies, evolved in the Cambrian, earlier than paleontologists have traditionally assumed.? Richard Monastersky, ??Vertebrate Origins: The Fossils Speak Up,? Science News, Vol. 149, 3 February 1996, p. 75.
??Also, the animal explosion caught people??s attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.? Paul Chien (Chairman, Biology Department, University of San Francisco), ??Explosion of Life,? Explosion of Life: A scientist reveals details of the Cambrian explosion, p. 3. Interviewed 30 June 1997.
??At 530 million years, the 3-centimeter-long Haikouichthys appears to be the world??s oldest fish, while another new specimen, Myllokunmingia, has simpler gills and is more primitive. To Conway Morris and others, the presence of these jawless fish in the Early Cambrian suggests that the origin of chordates lies even farther back in time.? Erik Stokstad, ??Exquisite Chinese Fossils Add New Pages to Book of Life,? Science, Vol. 291, 12 January 2001, p. 233.
??The [500] specimens [of fish] may have been buried alive, possibly as a result of a storm-induced burial....The possession of eyes (and probably nasal sacs) is consistent with Haikouichthys being a craniate, indicating that vertebrate evolution was well advanced by the Early Cambrian.? [/color][/i]D. G. Shu et al., ??Head and Backbone of the Early Cambrian Vertebrate Haikouichthys,? Nature, Vol. 421, 30 January 2003, pp. 527, 529.
D. G. Shu et al., ??Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China,? Nature, Vol. 402, 4 November 1999, pp. 42??46.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 24. Missing Trunk
Science Disproves Evolution
My qoute was about fossils. Not the existence of god
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
Well... i know this thread isnt about the existence/inexistence of God, and i dont want to hijack it, but i must point that, interestingly enough, skeptics, atheists and such denies the existence of God because He cant be seen...
Science Disproves Evolution
Show me the evidence to support creationism. Uniformitarianism approach is what scientist do today. Which assumes that the natural processes that operated in the past are the same as those that can be observed operating in the present. We see evolution going on today which they can make conclusions about the past. We have NO evidence what so ever to support creationism. Which again is a seperate topic.
Again certain fossils are easier preserved then others.
Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?
Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A
