Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu · Jul 6, 2017

Fossil Gaps 7

In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links” between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.”“Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

Pahu · Jul 12, 2017

Fossil Gaps 8

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.

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

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

“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.” Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“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.” Ibid., p. 97.

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

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

JLC10 · Jul 12, 2017

In your experience, is there any evidence to support micro-evolution?

Pahu · Jul 12, 2017

JLC10 said:

Of course. We see it happening all the time. 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.

JLC10 · Jul 12, 2017

Do you wish for me to include one of your statements in my publications. It's powerful evidence for the deliberate creation of Life. No more than 200 words.

Pahu · Jul 12, 2017

JLC10 said:

Be my guest.

JLC10 · Jul 12, 2017

True. More likely it would be environmental factors that initiated sparse micro-adaptions. Macroevolution can't even be viewed as an end-objective unless, of course, God exists. Does that sound right?

JLC10 · Jul 12, 2017

Pay you for it too.

Pahu · Jul 13, 2017

JLC10 said:

No. Are you saying that only if God exists, there could be macroevolution?

Pahu · Jul 19, 2017

Fossil Gaps 9

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 don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “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.” Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria,” Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

Pahu · Jul 26, 2017

Fossil Gaps 10

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.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants]—although there is no early bryophyte[nonvascular plant]fossil record.”Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.
“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...”Ibid.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

Pahu · Aug 2, 2017

Fossil Gaps 11

“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.”Chester A. Arnold,An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.”E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought,editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

everlasting_melody · Aug 3, 2017

I don't know if anyone mentioned this before, as the thread is super long, but theres a channel called genesis science network. Has alot of programming and lectures about science and how evolution is wrong based on current science and findings. Love it much! Highly recommend it to anyone struggling with this issue. Its a free channel on roku streamers and you can watch it on their website

Seymmour · Aug 5, 2017

Pahu,

I don't understand why you haven't yet published your findings in the scientific literature and collected your Nobel prize for shrewdly dismantling a theory that has convinced virtually every educated person for the last century and a half, including the smartest scientists, you know, those people who dedicate their entire careers to studying this matter.

I'm not sure what your academic credentials are, but let's say you don't have any, that you're just a guy holding forth on a subject he knows nothing about (you'd be surprised how many religious people [usually of the Muslim and Christian variety] turn out not to know nothing about evolution while at the same time having strong opinions on it), that would make your discovery even more remarkable!

Let us know what the peer reviewed journals have to say.
And if science works as it should, we will soon see your name plastered on every single newspaper in the world.

It will read something like this: "Random guy without any scientific background astounds academia by demolishing theory of evolution!"

You will be famous, you will be rich, and you will have those deluded eggheads like Stephen Hawking, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and the ghost of Steven Jay Gould all shake their heads and mutter: "By Jove, how wrong was I? Pahu has cracked it!"

S.G.

Pahu · Aug 5, 2017

Seymmour said:

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. The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Evolution's 'Best' Examples

If Charles Darwin could see today's best examples of evolution, would he be elated or depressed?

The well-known British naturalist popularized the idea of "natural selection," speculating that life could originate from non-life through natural means rather than through a living Creator. But finding examples of natural selection in action has proved to be difficult, even for modern researchers. In the journal Science, Dolph Schluter of the University of British Columbia summarized the current status of natural selection studies--which he admitted have been few.

One problem with conducting a rigorous study of natural selection is that there are so many factors involved. Pinning down what environmental factor supposedly influenced which trait is very difficult, likely impossible. Difficulties like this have probably dissuaded a more serious study of natural selection, though there has been no lack of speculation for the past 150 years as to its possible and varied manifestations.

Examples of natural selection cited by Schluter include studies of threespine stickleback fish, varieties of which can live in fresh water or the ocean. He also listed walking stick insect varieties that prefer different host plants, marine snails that live in differing regions of the intertidal zone, and mosquito fish, which tend to adopt more streamlined shapes when living in the presence of predators. In each example, small changes occurred in some individuals, and these then tended to breed with one another.

Schluter concluded that "the discovery that reproductive isolation can be brought about by ecological adaptation in ordinary phenotypic [visible] traits bridges Darwin's science of speciation and our own."1

However, maintaining that any such bridge exists between Darwinistic imaginings and scientific realities ignores at least two considerations.

First, these studies concluded that the alterations made to organisms were a result of the environment acting upon the organisms, making the assumption that the environment was the active agent and the organisms were passive. The research failed to rule out the opposite possibility--that the environment was passive and the organisms actively underwent changes.

A better description of what took place would be internal genetic selection, if the alterations observed were the result of well-planned internal capacities to "select" the best features. But this points to an original high-quality design, something that doubtless would not mesh well with a naturalistic philosophy that holds that life progressed from simple to ever-more-complex forms.

Second, what do these subtle changes to certain traits have to do with the overarching evolutionary myth of particles-to-people? Schluter listed the examples as instances of "speciation" because researchers observed that a new offshoot from an original population no longer prefers to interbreed with its ancestral population. But this kind of "speciation" has nothing to do with generating fundamentally different body plans, as would be required for the development of new kinds of organisms.

Instead, it has everything to do with confusing the issue by invoking different definitions of “species” to suit various explanatory needs. Oddly, Schluter referred to “a revision of the notion of speciation itself” as a conceptual advance.1 But if speciation is no longer to be described in terms of body form and plan, then it loses its relevance to the whole question of particles-to-people evolution.

What the science observes is two individuals (or populations) that no longer interbreed. In stark contrast, the story of evolution asserts that apes share a common ancestor with earthworms. How are these supposed to relate?

Subtle variations in stickleback fish bodies may only be demonstrations of well-designed internal capacities to generate variation. In any case, these mostly reversible trait permutations do not result in any change in basic body plan. The stickleback fishes are all still sticklebacks, the walking stick insects are still walking stick insects, etc. If Darwinian evolution is true, fundamental changes should be observable both in modern creatures and in fossils. They are not.

But if creation is true, then science should observe exactly what it does: designed capacities for variations to occur on well-constructed basic body plans. And this means that Darwin would undoubtedly be utterly disappointed in evolution's current "best" examples.

Reference

Schluter, D. 2009. Evidence for Ecological Speciation and Its Alternative. Science. 323(5915): 737-741.

285

Seymmour · Aug 6, 2017

Pahu said:

Pahu,

I assume that while those "well-meaning men" ( I'm not sure why you imagine the sciences to be free of women ) can not see the "overall picture", you do.
I'll ask again what your academic credentials are and why you are focusing all your energy on convincing us here instead of taking your rightful place among the likes of Newton, Darwin and Copernicus by publishing your findings?

While I have yet to plough through the enormous blocks of text that you copy and paste here, the fact that you think scientists "assume" anything at all tells me that your understanding of the scientific process is, let's say, wanting.
You are as likely to find "assumptions" at a scientific convention as you are nudity.

If you study fossils, you don't "assume" that you'll never find fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.
In fact, utterances of the sort would result in immediate academic defenestration, and rightfully so.

There are many domains (religion comes to mind) where assumptions without evidence are commonplace.
I'm sorry to say that your lack of knowledge of even the basic workings of science do not encourage further reading into your massive oeuvre on this subject.

Seymour G.

Pahu · Aug 6, 2017

Seymmour said:

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Another Cambrian Discovery Discredits Evolution

A fossil creature from the phylum Entoprocta (invertebrate animals that have tentacles and lacking a mineralized skeleton) was found in marked abundance (over 400 individuals) in Burgess Shale. The Burgess is a sedimentary layer that's purportedly part of the Cambrian period about a half-billion years ago, according to evolutionists.1 The problem for paleontologists is that the supposedly 520 million year old creature looks exactly like its living counterparts, only up to 8 eight times larger.

The Cambrian geologic system is an enigma for the evolutionary paradigm. If evolution is true, life would have started out simple and then evolved in complexity over time. The Cambrian system is one of the oldest geological layers containing billions of sophisticated fossils, supposedly formed after the Precambrian system. The Precambrian layers contain "simple" single-celled life, but also have jellyfish and annelids (worms).
In the Cambrian system, the fossils represent an explosion of complex multicellular life forms—hence the term "Cambrian Explosion." The problem for evolution is that the Cambrian explosion occurs suddenly with no transitional forms preceding it. Furthermore, many of the types of fossils found in the Cambrian layer are represented by modern organisms, such as entoprocts, that are alive and well today. For a summary of the Cambrian geological system and Burgess Shale, see the excellent review by Dr. John Morris in Acts & Facts.2
This species of entoproct, Cotyledion tylodes, was identified previously, but the specimens were not well preserved and difficult to characterize. The discovery of hundreds of new extremely well preserved fossils in much older strata was a huge surprise. Another shock was the extremely well defined detail of the fossil's mouth, anus, and digestive tract, proving that the previous classification of C. tylodes as a cnidarian (a jellyfish-like creature) was wrong. In fact, not only was the creature postulated to be much older than previously estimated, it was incredibly more complex.
Interestingly, the fossils of C. tylodes also appear to have somewhat more complex features than modern entoprocts. Unlike living entoprocts, the stem and flowerlike feeding cup of the "ancient" version was covered by tiny hardened protuberances (sclerites), and the creatures were much larger.
Clearly, a majority of the fossil record was formed as a result of the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis, making it one of evolution's greatest enemies.3 The original diversity of organisms were created by God to reproduce "after their kind," which is why fossils like the entoproct are complex, fully formed, and similar to their modern living counterparts.

References

Pappas, S. 2013. 500-Million-Year-Old Animal Looked Like a Tulip. LiveScience. Posted on livescience.com, January 17, 2013, accessed January 23, 2013.
Morris, J. 2008. The Burgess Shale and Complex Life. Acts & Facts. 37 (10): 13.
Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record: Unearthing the History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.

another-cambrian-discovery-discredits

Seymmour · Aug 6, 2017

Your reluctance to answer simple questions speaks volumes.

Seymour G.

Pahu · Aug 9, 2017

Fossil Gaps 12

“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck,Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.”Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

Pahu · Aug 16, 2017

Fossil Gaps 13

d. “The insect fossil record has many gaps.”“Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD,Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).
e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.”Homer W. Smith,From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.”Taylor, p. 60.

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html]

Science Disproves Evolution

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

everlasting_melody

Guest

Seymmour

Guest

Senior Member

Seymmour

Guest

Senior Member

Seymmour

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member