Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Embryology 2
Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief [of the “biogenetic law”]. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).
b. In 1868, Haeckel, using distorted data, advanced this “biogenetic law.” It was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide. Thompson explains:
“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” W. R. Thompson, p. 12.
“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” Pitman, p. 120.
M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.
Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.
“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” Fix, p. 285.
“[The German scientist Wilhelm His] accused Haeckel of shocking dishonesty in repeating the same picture several times to show the similarity among vertebrates at early embryonic stages in several plates of [Haeckel’s book].” Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.
“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.
“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.
c. “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.” Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Well, its true. As much as I dont want to get involved, speaking as a scientist myself (though from a very different field then biology) I should probably say that its not like there's some massive anti-creation conspiracy going on. Evolution just explains everything we so so nicely that at this point there's not much need for anything else. Any little detail at this point isn't enough to overthrow the literal mountains of evidence and work thats been done on evolutionary biology, and biology in general, it can simply change how we think about some mechanisms and such.
I know this probably isn't going to convince anyone, but still. Creationism isn't really taken seriously by scientists because it doesn't really give us anything to work with. Its the same idea as why string theory isn't taken seriously by lots of physicists. Even then, while some things could possibly be explained better with creationism, theres tons more stuff that is explained better with evolution, and evolution explains the stuff creationism covers as well.
I know this is like, "key" to some of your guys belief systems, but this is so much of a non-issue I don't know why people fight about it so much. A good chunk of scientists are Christians anyway; heck my Physics department was the only all-Christian department on my entire college campus. The biologists were pretty much all Christians as well. This just isn't really a debate that gets us anywhere anymore, I dunno *shrug*
I know this probably isn't going to convince anyone, but still. Creationism isn't really taken seriously by scientists because it doesn't really give us anything to work with. Its the same idea as why string theory isn't taken seriously by lots of physicists. Even then, while some things could possibly be explained better with creationism, theres tons more stuff that is explained better with evolution, and evolution explains the stuff creationism covers as well.
I know this is like, "key" to some of your guys belief systems, but this is so much of a non-issue I don't know why people fight about it so much. A good chunk of scientists are Christians anyway; heck my Physics department was the only all-Christian department on my entire college campus. The biologists were pretty much all Christians as well. This just isn't really a debate that gets us anywhere anymore, I dunno *shrug*
G
You have posted articles that claim to have discovered evidence. Again and again, you obviously don't understand the difference between evidence and proof. And now I see you claim to know about how important peer reviews are for writers? Are you kidding? People earning English degrees can't ever use anything but peer reviewed references in their papers. And by the way, Wikipedia has never been accepted in the world of academia as a credible reference. And you're demanding that we produce peer reviewed articles? You're "embryonic tail and coat of fur that was shed" proves nothing. I think a human fetus resembles a fish at some point in development, but it develops into a human and the fish develops into into a fish. So what makes that happen?
Oh well. This is pointless. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sure not learning anything here. If you're all that into this evolution thing, Crucifiction, why don't you go and major in archeology, biology, or something alike? Then you can at least present a genuine argument.
Oh well. This is pointless. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm sure not learning anything here. If you're all that into this evolution thing, Crucifiction, why don't you go and major in archeology, biology, or something alike? Then you can at least present a genuine argument.
G
It's not that I don't think that's worth noting, Grey. But it still is not proof that macroevolution has graduated from theory to fact. I definitely believe a certain type of evolution is valid, but not to the degree it has been taken. Scientists just plain are not always right about everything. It is a well known fact that they call something true until more information comes in that makes them revise that "truth". Also, let's face it, you have to take on faith what they tell you in the first place. Because for you? It's all hearsay evidence, no matter what you might call it. You can't test everything they claim out for yourself! You have to go on their say-so. So yes, it's about faith, much like it is with Christianity. Well--wait. Christian's have faith in God. Science is about having faith in man's accumulated knowledge, and let's face it; no sane scientist will tell you that he knows everything about everything. So whatever he doesn't know may well make all the difference in this world! Again and again; you have one tiny missing piece of any formula, and you will have an inaccurate result.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
There is no differentiation between Micro and Macro evolution in the eyes in the vast majority of scientists.
I completely agree, and thats why scientists don't assert to be "100% right on everything", that appears to be your argument on the theistic end when referring to the torah and new testament.
When someone says this is "true" in the scientific community they are met with skepticism. Even some aspects of the law of gravity are still considered theory. I do not take anything on faith when it comes to science. When it comes to theories, I only see them as valid after the due process of the scientific method, even then I see it as the most likely explanation for the phenomenon. And yes evolution and speciation have been observed in laboratory conditions, and both are easily visible in the genetic pool.
I completely agree, and thats why scientists don't assert to be "100% right on everything", that appears to be your argument on the theistic end when referring to the torah and new testament.
When someone says this is "true" in the scientific community they are met with skepticism. Even some aspects of the law of gravity are still considered theory. I do not take anything on faith when it comes to science. When it comes to theories, I only see them as valid after the due process of the scientific method, even then I see it as the most likely explanation for the phenomenon. And yes evolution and speciation have been observed in laboratory conditions, and both are easily visible in the genetic pool.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms [theories] and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."—*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).
"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Figure 3: Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.
Life Sciences
Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 5.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time ≠ macro)Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term “organic evolution” will mean macroevolution.
(Most readers will want to read the accompanying references, quotations, and notes beginning on page 50.)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences.html#wp5102353
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION
Do cross-species changes actually occur? If not, there is no evolution. What do reputable scientists have to say about this? Here are their statements. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
CONTENT: Scientists Speak about Speciation
Introduction: The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.
Species, the Great Mystery: Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?
Only Well-defined Species: If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur
Only the Species Exists: Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications
The Species Barrier: There is always a limit, beyond which a species cannot be bred
A Crucial Principle: Man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors
Conclusion: Only God could make the species
This material is excerpted from the book, SPECIES EVOLUTION. Species, the Great Mystery: Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?
Only Well-defined Species: If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur
Only the Species Exists: Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications
The Species Barrier: There is always a limit, beyond which a species cannot be bred
A Crucial Principle: Man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors
Conclusion: Only God could make the species
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Species Evolution.
INTRODUCTION
The knowing are disillusioned, the ignorant are gullible.
"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most tend to assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
SPECIES, THE GREAT MYSTERY
Where did they come from? Why is each species different than the others?
"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of theSpecies."—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria (1985), p. 33.
"But in the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: `In dim outline, evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.' Sixty years later we are, if anything, worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
"More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is `a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.
"Evolution is . . troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery—speciation itself."—*Keith S. Thomsen, "The Meanings of Evolution" in American Scientist, September / October 1982, p. 529.
ONLY WELL-DEFINED SPECIES
If the theory were true, there would be no sharp distinctions, just a blur.
"Charles Darwin, himself the father of evolution in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary speciation and wrote: `As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1966), p. 139.
"We recognize the great powers of observation possessed by Darwin, but we are amazed that he did not observe the limits of variation. Variation, he should have recognized, can produce new varieties only within kinds already in existence—a situation which could never produce evolution. While tracing migration paths of plants and animals [from South America to the Galapagos], Darwin never grasped the fact that he was able to trace those routes because the migrants were still bona fide members of the same basic kinds to which their ancestors belong."—Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (1976), p. [italics his].
"Species do not originate. All they do is remain in existence or become extinct."—*G.H. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation Research Society Quarterly 17(1):49-50.
"Why should we be able to classify plants and animals into types or species at all? In a fascinating editorial feature in Natural History, Stephen Gould writes that biologists have been quite successful in dividing up the living world into distinct and discrete species. Furthermore, our modern scientific classifications often agree in minute detail with the `folk classifications' of so-called primitive peoples, and the same criteria apply as well to fossils. In other words, says Gould, there is a recognizable reality and distinct boundaries between types at all times and all places . ." `But,' says Gould, `how could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory [evolution] that proclaimed ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature?' For an evolutionist, why should there by species at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 121-122.
"If a line of organisms can steadily modify its structure in various directions, why are there any lines stable enough and distinct enough to be called species at all? Why is the world not full of intermediate forms of every conceivable kind?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141.
"Despite this, many species and even whole families remain inexplicably constant. The shark of today, for instance, is hardly distinguishable from the shark of 150 million years ago. And this constancy is seen at higher levels too: Birds vary widely in size, shape, coloring, song, and habits, but are still substantially similar to the birds of the early Tertiary." According to Professor W.H. Thorpe, Director of the Sub-department of Animal Behavior at Cambridge and a world authority, this is the problem in evolution. He said in 1968: `What is it that holds so many groups of animals to an astonishingly constant form over millions of years? This seems to me the problem [in evolution] now—the problem of constancy rather than that of change.' "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 141-142.
ONLY THE SPECIES EXISTS
Phylum, class, order, family, and most genera are just paper classifications. (Some creatures classed by men as genera or subspecies are really species.)
"Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.
"According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has, at least in more favorable examples, a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."—*G.W. Richards, "A Guide to the Practice of Modern Taxonomy," in Science, March 13, 1970, p. 1477 [comment made during review of *Mayr's authoritative Principles of Systematic Zoology].
"Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other groups."—*Ernst Mayr, Principles of Systematic Zoology (1969)."There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics (1946), pp. 222-223.
THE SPECIES BARRIER
There is always a limit beyond which a species cannot be bred.
"Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual continuous change, species could (in Wallace's phrase) ` . . depart indefinitely from the original type.' Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the`pure line research' of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they `depart indefinitely' from the original type or are there built-in limits and constraints?"Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin's theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or `pure lines') of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect."Johannsen's work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, `as unyielding as iron.'" Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long." He found you could breed some super layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from `lower than maximum' producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376.
"Darwin's gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46.
"It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34.
"Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness."—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186.
"[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through [the passage of] time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94.
A CRUCIAL PRINCIPLE
If evolutionary theory were true, then man should possess a smaller gene pool than his animal ancestors.
"A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals, `. . the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man [should possess] a smaller gene potential than his animal ancestors! [!] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!"—*D.S. Falconer, Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), pp. 129-130 [italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), pp. 56, 57].
CONCLUSION
Only God could make the species.
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible." To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55.
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT SPECIATION
There are a ton of scientists, dude. An absolute ton. The ones you list are tiny minority drops in the massive ocean that is the scientific community.
Coming from the scientific establishment and having some general level biological training, I can assure you that there IS NO CONSPIRACY. Having written papers and stuff before, the entire thing seems ludicrous. The only possible "conspiratorial behavior" one could think of is that the editors of some journals may flat out not want to publish you because they dont like your research or you. One of my professors got denied by three journals because they didn't like some of his numbers, and it wasn't even wrong research or anything particularly groundbreaking. But you'll always find journals willing to publish information, as long as its decent research. My professor I mentioned earlier did eventually get published too!
Fundamentally, science isn't some over-arching institution. Its a group of people doing things, and this kind of drama and baggage goes wherever people are. Peer review isn't flawless, its just as flawed and biased as we are, but that's why its done a LOT so that the net bias effectively goes to zero.
Furthermore, all the links to books and stuff you listed carry no weight to me. The only way to talk about this is in journal articles. Find me some authentic, peer-reviewed articles from a non-sketchy source and we'll talk. I'm not trying to be like "oh i need evidence you can't give blah blah" i'm just saying, if we want to treat this like a scientific question, which it would be, then we have to talk about it scientifically. Journal articles aren't like, a smoking gun, they're just the scientific equivalent of those papers and things you listed. So like I said, find me that and we'll talk.
Coming from the scientific establishment and having some general level biological training, I can assure you that there IS NO CONSPIRACY. Having written papers and stuff before, the entire thing seems ludicrous. The only possible "conspiratorial behavior" one could think of is that the editors of some journals may flat out not want to publish you because they dont like your research or you. One of my professors got denied by three journals because they didn't like some of his numbers, and it wasn't even wrong research or anything particularly groundbreaking. But you'll always find journals willing to publish information, as long as its decent research. My professor I mentioned earlier did eventually get published too!
Fundamentally, science isn't some over-arching institution. Its a group of people doing things, and this kind of drama and baggage goes wherever people are. Peer review isn't flawless, its just as flawed and biased as we are, but that's why its done a LOT so that the net bias effectively goes to zero.
Furthermore, all the links to books and stuff you listed carry no weight to me. The only way to talk about this is in journal articles. Find me some authentic, peer-reviewed articles from a non-sketchy source and we'll talk. I'm not trying to be like "oh i need evidence you can't give blah blah" i'm just saying, if we want to treat this like a scientific question, which it would be, then we have to talk about it scientifically. Journal articles aren't like, a smoking gun, they're just the scientific equivalent of those papers and things you listed. So like I said, find me that and we'll talk.
Completely misrepresents macroevolution. Let's see what real science
has discovered.
Transitional fossil of fish with legs known as Tiktaalik
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Transitional fossil of feathered dinosaur known as Archaeopteryx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
Hominid fossils
List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fossils don't lie!