Science Disproves Evolution

[5thHorseMan]

in fact Eldredge makes a pretty strong argument against your baseless nonsense.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50COA9629C8B63

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 8a
[/align]

Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

â??...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.â?� David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), â??The Gaps in the Fossil Record,â?� Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

â??Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of â??seeingâ?? evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of â??gapsâ?? in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.â?� David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), â??Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,â?� Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

â??In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.â?� Goldschmidt, p. 98.

â??When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.â?� Ibid., p. 97.

â??There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.â?� Katherine G. Field et al., â??Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,â?� Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[dejayou30]

I love this debate. Christians that argue against evolution fail to realize that their "God's word" says man was made out of dirt. That in and of itself has been disproved, as we know through a lot of evidence (fossil, DNA, endogenous retrovirii, etc.) that mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes and was certainly not created out of dirt. You can try to disprove evolution all you want with your cut and paste garbage from sites like AnswersInGenesis.com, but the fact remains that "God's word" is wrong, and we were definitely not made of dirt. So if God's word is wrong, its probably not God's word after all.

Peace! :jointsmile::thumbsup:

[5thHorseMan]

rapid changes in evolution occur during rapid enviromental changes. The ebb and flow of the multiple ice age periods being a good example of rapid enviromental change, as well as the permian and cambrian extinctions

[denialisback]

I love this debate. Christians that argue against evolution fail to realize that their "God's word" says man was made out of dirt. That in and of itself has been disproved, as we know through a lot of evidence (fossil, DNA, endogenous retrovirii, etc.) that mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes and was certainly not created out of dirt. You can try to disprove evolution all you want with your cut and paste garbage from sites like AnswersInGenesis.com, but the fact remains that "God's word" is wrong, and we were definitely not made of dirt. So if God's word is wrong, its probably not God's word after all.

Peace! :jointsmile::thumbsup:

hmm dejayou, long time no see ! hullo! some good points there, but isn't the planet and all life on the planet itself made from dust (planet formation??)..

the debate continues..


Peace,
Denial

[5thHorseMan]

that dust in silicate though, and we are carbon based, carbon being an organic molecule, therefore, we are not made of clay.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1b
[/align]

At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that donâ??t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. â??The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.â?� Katrin Henze and William Martin, â??Essence of Mitochondria,â?� Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1c
[/align]

Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

â??The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissueâ??that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] â??although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.â?� Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

â??The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...â?� Ibid.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[gypski]

The first fossils or living things. Evolution marches on, proving itself daily. :jointsmile:

Stromatolites

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Pahu78]

The first fossils or living things. Evolution marches on, proving itself daily. :jointsmile:

Stromatolites

Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How does the information in the two links you provide prove evolution. I noticed many unsupported assumptions and assertions.