Re: Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:54 am
ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:hughfarey wrote:Still no. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have not "failed." In the 150 years since On The Origin Of Species was published, and even in the 40 years or so since Gould and Eldredge's ideas were published, fossils have been found in abundance, and all contributed to the developing theory of evolution as it is today.Alter2Ego wrote:David Raup is as pro-evolution as the others. But he was forced to admit that the fossils record does not show any creatures evolving from something entirely different. Not only that, even when variations of the same species showed up, they were not considered an improvement over those that had preceded them. According to evolution theory, the newer arrivals are supposed to be improvements over their predecesors; remember? Raup's comment above says there is no evidence of that in the fossils record. And he's on your side of the evolution debate.
David Raup was concerned with the mechanism of mass extinction, and the part played by chance. The extinction of pterosaurs, reptiles supremely well adapted to their environment, and the time it took for birds to replace then in their ecological niche, was a case in point. He realised that birds could not have evolved from pterosaurs, and speculated that a sudden change of environment had rendered them extinct, so that their replacements had to evolve from less well adapted animals, in a remarkably short time. In a loose sense, it is certainly true that early birds were not improvements on pterosaurs from an aerial point of view, but they were great improvements on the species from which they evolved.
As we have seen, your understanding of the details of evolution is not sufficiently strong to persuade those of us who know a bit more about it that it doesn't work. However, it may be that your understanding of the details of creation is more your strength, so why not try to tell us a little more about that?
Still yes. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have ALL failed.(See how easy that was for me to do what you did above in reverse?) In other words, your refusal to face reality is meaningless considering that the very same pro-evolution scientists you are relying on were quoted as saying the following regarding Charles Darwin's failed predictions. (Notice the various people that I have already quoted in this thread.)
MY FIRST POST ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=15
Alter2Ego wrote:1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)
2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)
MY 4TH POST ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=15
Alter2Ego wrote:4. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).
MY 2ND POST ON PAGE 6 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=75
Alter2Ego wrote:3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)
4. "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)
MY 4TH POST ON PAGE 10 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=135
Alter2Ego wrote:5. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)
Even after I quoted Darwin speculating about bears evolving from whales--from his own science fiction book, Origin of Species-- you tried to talk your way around that, as noted below:
THE VERY LAST POST ON PAGE 9 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120
In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered , by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
(SOURCE: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; Chapter 6, p. 184)