Can It Be Science If It's Based On Lies???

[mamooth]

Try not to give the crazy lady the attention she's so desperate for. Just walk by and leave her screaming on the corner with her sandwich board.

 

[L.K.Eder]

where ever there is millions of dollars of grant money at stake, there are bound to be many lies

wow, another gem. i am in awe.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

2.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia

Pay particular attention to the "over time" part. That means not spontaneous, or sudden.





3. Lots of folks become incensed when there is criticism of Darwin's theory, and it is my observation that most of the angriest ones know only the 'science' that they were taught in high school.

The most popular high school biology textbook, "Prentice Hall Biology," seems to be the basis of information of so many Darwin-defenders, and it actually states:
"By examining fossils from sequential layers of rock, one could view how a species had changed and produced different species over time."
Miller and Levine, "Prentice Hall Biology," p. 382.

Did you notice the "over time" phrase again?





I can prove that none of the above is correct or true.
Really.

In two ways: one, by explaining what the actual science of biology- not the political science (i.e., Darwinian evolution) - accepts as its basis.
And two, by providing the statements of recognized scientists.
Ready?




4. Imagine that you could witness all of biological history: begin by making the acquaintance of some of the first forms of animal life, say, a very simple sponge.

Disclaimer: if you have no experience in science, and no knowledge of these simple multicellular organisms, sponges, well...this discussion is probably not for you. Sorry.

a. OK...now, according to Darwin, start with those sponges: several thousand generations later, accumulation of many random 'alterations' produces a different kind of sponge...and we have the first species.

b. Millions more generations, and we have some more species...some of which are so different that we can group them as different genus's...genera.

c. Many, many more generations....enough differences, and we now have families.

d. Thousands more generations, with commensurate alterations, and we have orders, and then classes.

Guess what: after all of that....all we still have are sponges!!! Phylum Porifera

5. Now....a new kind of thing emerges.....so different that we couldn't call it a sponge! Finally, a different phylum!
"After sponges, Sogin thinks, jellyfish evolved, and then anemones, which gave rise to the first animal with bilateral symmetry.." Was The Humble Sponge Earth's First Animal?





6. Darwin said that the only evidence of his theory would come from examining the fossil record. :
"... if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent-forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains ..."
Darwin, "Origin," chapter six





7. Back to fossils for a moment. Clearly they are the most important aspect of the discussion of whether Darwin was correct, or not.
I'm not the one saying that: the National Academy of Sciences says it. And the text used in most high schools says so.

So does this, from Yale University:

"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
Carl O. Dunbar, Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy from Yale University, "Historic Geology," John Wiley and Sons, 1960, pp. 47


So....if the fossil record doesn't do what the good folks above say it does.....what does that suggest about Darwin's theory?

Don't change the subject. Fossils.

So....there better be some pretty darn good fossil evidence, huh?

Monkey PLEASE!

Origins can not be repeated and an opinion of them must therefore be taken on faith by each and every Monkey who's capable of understanding the concept. What if Darwin was nothing more than what we all hope to be: observant and interesting?

In my humble opinion, if you can't simply look around and see how the Monkeys with clothing and air conditioning are related by blood to their living world, I can't help you. To this average Monkey, it's as plain as the pert little nose on your pretty face.

Mom!​

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g]Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AVG-JOE]

where ever there is millions of dollars of grant money at stake, there are bound to be many lies

Certainly is true with respect to the global warming scam.....but with both Darwinian evolution and global warming, I see a a heavy, heavy overlay of politics.

'Heavy overlay of politics'...?

What does that mean? Other than being one warped model of the dog-eat-dog world of politics, what does either have to do with the other?

 

[AVG-JOE]

So.....do you have anything to say about the OP?


No?


See ya.'

he did comment on the o/p. he pointed out that science adapts to new information

No, he didn't, nor did you.


The question is so simple, how could you miss it?

If the statements by Darwin, and the National Academy are not true......

...well, you can see the rest of the OP for yourself.

Why's your hosiery all bunched up over a theoretician who died over 100 years ago?

If Darwin were alive, don't you think he'd be the first to want to discuss new evidence regarding the various theories of origins we have to choose from, including his own?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Any understanding of cell function obliterates the notion of Darwin's evoluytion

So... ass-u-me that Darwin was a boob. Never wrote a word worth reading...

Where did we come from, Frank.​

 

[PoliticalChic]

where ever there is millions of dollars of grant money at stake, there are bound to be many lies

Certainly is true with respect to the global warming scam.....but with both Darwinian evolution and global warming, I see a a heavy, heavy overlay of politics.

'Heavy overlay of politics'...?

What does that mean? Other than being one warped model of the dog-eat-dog world of politics, what does either have to do with the other?

1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology: e.g., "intelligent design. "

2. For Marx, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.."
Ibid, vol. 41: 246–47



Now...if you read the thread, you will find that the fossil evidence that Darwin's theory relies on does not exist.
The "Lies" of the title refers to the claim that it does.

The reason why his theory is so very important to Marx, and to materialism in general, is that it is the philosophical basis of secularism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Any understanding of cell function obliterates the notion of Darwin's evoluytion

So... ass-u-me that Darwin was a boob. Never wrote a word worth reading...

Where did we come from, Frank.​

Bulletin:
Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[orogenicman]

Certainly is true with respect to the global warming scam.....but with both Darwinian evolution and global warming, I see a a heavy, heavy overlay of politics.

'Heavy overlay of politics'...?

What does that mean? Other than being one warped model of the dog-eat-dog world of politics, what does either have to do with the other?

1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology: e.g., "intelligent design. "

2. For Marx, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.."
Ibid, vol. 41: 246–47



Now...if you read the thread, you will find that the fossil evidence that Darwin's theory relies on does not exist.
The "Lies" of the title refers to the claim that it does.

The reason why his theory is so very important to Marx, and to materialism in general, is that it is the philosophical basis of secularism.

Well, PC, if you were to get off your fat arse in Brooklyn and join me in the field, I can show you tons of fossil and stratigraphic evidence that you claim doesn't exist. You won't do that though. No creationist has ever taken me up on the offer to lead a field trip because it would rock their world. And you can't have that, can you? By the way, have you found that Cambrian bunny rabbit yet?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Any understanding of cell function obliterates the notion of Darwin's evoluytion

So... ass-u-me that Darwin was a boob. Never wrote a word worth reading...

Where did we come from, Frank.​

Bulletin:
Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the origin of life.

So... why do we care?

​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Certainly is true with respect to the global warming scam.....but with both Darwinian evolution and global warming, I see a a heavy, heavy overlay of politics.

'Heavy overlay of politics'...?

What does that mean? Other than being one warped model of the dog-eat-dog world of politics, what does either have to do with the other?

1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology: e.g., "intelligent design. "

2. For Marx, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.."
Ibid, vol. 41: 246–47



Now...if you read the thread, you will find that the fossil evidence that Darwin's theory relies on does not exist.
The "Lies" of the title refers to the claim that it does.

The reason why his theory is so very important to Marx, and to materialism in general, is that it is the philosophical basis of secularism.

Lies, schmies - you're discussing opinions of theories - what you describe as lies is a simple difference of opinions. Again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'Heavy overlay of politics'...?

What does that mean? Other than being one warped model of the dog-eat-dog world of politics, what does either have to do with the other?

1. One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

a. Teleology is the idea that nature, or history, actually has a purpose, a design. Most theology presupposes a teleology: e.g., "intelligent design. "

2. For Marx, "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.."
Ibid, vol. 41: 246–47



Now...if you read the thread, you will find that the fossil evidence that Darwin's theory relies on does not exist.
The "Lies" of the title refers to the claim that it does.

The reason why his theory is so very important to Marx, and to materialism in general, is that it is the philosophical basis of secularism.

Lies, schmies - you're discussing opinions of theories - what you describe as lies is a simple difference of opinions. Again.

1. "Lies, schmies - you're discussing opinions of theories..."

Actually, what I'm doing is connecting the dots for you.

What do you think Darwin's theory is but an opinion, a conjecture.



2. The lie is stating that the fossil record evidences same.

a. “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.” (Eldredge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

b. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.



BTW...
"Niles Eldredge (born August 25, 1943) is an American biologist and paleontologist, who, along with Stephen Jay Gould, proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972."
Niles Eldredge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ogibillm]

politicalchic, i think it would be helpful to everyone if you would answer a question, just so that we're all focused in the same area.

are you arguing against the modern theory of evolution as a whole, or just stating that Darwin was not 100% correct?

 

[AVG-JOE]

What's your goal here PoliticalChic?

Are you looking for simple agreement that Darwin was a putz? Well, that too would be a matter of opinion.

It can only be a lie if it can be proven wrong under a controlled setting - anything else is simply a matter of diverse opinions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's your goal here PoliticalChic?

Are you looking for simple agreement that Darwin was a putz? Well, that too would be a matter of opinion.

It can only be a lie if it can be proven wrong under a controlled setting - anything else is simply a matter of diverse opinions.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

 

[orogenicman]

What's your goal here PoliticalChic?

Are you looking for simple agreement that Darwin was a putz? Well, that too would be a matter of opinion.

It can only be a lie if it can be proven wrong under a controlled setting - anything else is simply a matter of diverse opinions.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

Are you a spambot? I only ask because you can't seem to post a coherent response and apparently have to rely on some list of equally incoherent points plagiarized from some unknown creationist web site. If your goal was truth, one would think that you would actually be looking for it instead of regurgitating what some creationist poser has posted somewhere else.

 

[flacaltenn]

What's your goal here PoliticalChic?

Are you looking for simple agreement that Darwin was a putz? Well, that too would be a matter of opinion.

It can only be a lie if it can be proven wrong under a controlled setting - anything else is simply a matter of diverse opinions.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

From what I've read PC -- there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist. There were plenty of times in history where conditions suddenly changed, caused IMMENSE stress on species, and LIKELY altered DNA in a WIDESPREAD, ACCELERATED fashion..

We've probably been chasing Darwin's CONCEPT of evolution a bit too literally and falsely EXPECT a finely demarked tree of life when actually, the picture is a lot more violent and chaotic than we (or Darwin) imagined..

I'm pretty sure that when Darwin was comparing bird beaks for nut-cracking ability and mumbling about "survival of the fittest" -- He DEFINITELY was NOT thinking Asteroid impacts, heavy cosmic ray storms, and Continental level volcanic upheavals..

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's your goal here PoliticalChic?

Are you looking for simple agreement that Darwin was a putz? Well, that too would be a matter of opinion.

It can only be a lie if it can be proven wrong under a controlled setting - anything else is simply a matter of diverse opinions.

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

From what I've read PC -- there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist. There were plenty of times in history where conditions suddenly changed, caused IMMENSE stress on species, and LIKELY altered DNA in a WIDESPREAD, ACCELERATED fashion..

We've probably been chasing Darwin's CONCEPT of evolution a bit too literally and falsely EXPECT a finely demarked tree of life when actually, the picture is a lot more violent and chaotic than we (or Darwin) imagined..

I'm pretty sure that when Darwin was comparing bird beaks for nut-cracking ability and mumbling about "survival of the fittest" -- He DEFINITELY was NOT thinking Asteroid impacts, heavy cosmic ray storms, and Continental level volcanic upheavals..

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

 

[ogibillm]

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

From what I've read PC -- there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist. There were plenty of times in history where conditions suddenly changed, caused IMMENSE stress on species, and LIKELY altered DNA in a WIDESPREAD, ACCELERATED fashion..

We've probably been chasing Darwin's CONCEPT of evolution a bit too literally and falsely EXPECT a finely demarked tree of life when actually, the picture is a lot more violent and chaotic than we (or Darwin) imagined..

I'm pretty sure that when Darwin was comparing bird beaks for nut-cracking ability and mumbling about "survival of the fittest" -- He DEFINITELY was NOT thinking Asteroid impacts, heavy cosmic ray storms, and Continental level volcanic upheavals..

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

and we have fossil evidence that supports his theory.

again though i ask if you'll answer if it is the modern theory of evolution that you have issue with or if you are upset that darwin did not have the complete picture?

 

[flacaltenn]

1. "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



2. "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.



3. ". . . 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.



There are dozens of these kind of statements.

Yet we find:

. The National Academy of Sciences....pretty prestigious? Then let's begin with these folks.
They were good enough to publish two booklets, the aim of which was to prop up Darwin's theory.
This is from the 1998 edition, which states that fossils are the very first among "several compelling lines of evidence that demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt" that all living things are modifications of but one common ancestor.
Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science

.Then, the next year, that publication claims that the theory has been "thoroughly tested and confirmed" by lots of evidence, the first of which is the fossil record. It says this about the fossil record: it "provides consistent evidence of systemic change through time- of descent with modifications." Evidence of evolution - New World Encyclopedia



What do you make of that?


My 'goal'???

Truth.....you must know that.

From what I've read PC -- there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist. There were plenty of times in history where conditions suddenly changed, caused IMMENSE stress on species, and LIKELY altered DNA in a WIDESPREAD, ACCELERATED fashion..

We've probably been chasing Darwin's CONCEPT of evolution a bit too literally and falsely EXPECT a finely demarked tree of life when actually, the picture is a lot more violent and chaotic than we (or Darwin) imagined..

I'm pretty sure that when Darwin was comparing bird beaks for nut-cracking ability and mumbling about "survival of the fittest" -- He DEFINITELY was NOT thinking Asteroid impacts, heavy cosmic ray storms, and Continental level volcanic upheavals..

"... there is no REQUIREMENT that missing links exist."

No...not if faith is good enough.

Darwin wrote in "Origin" of the need for fossil evidence to prove his theory.

Yes -- he needed a well ordered ascension of life to be documented in the fossil record.. Because he understood the BASIC RESULT of mutations -- but he completely lacked knowledge about the MECHANISMS of mutations.. That was a job for latter science to fill in.

You can't really succeed in blowing up Darwin completely, because he is the FOUNDATION STONE of the "evolving" science that he created. But you CAN correct those who take on the silly job of PRETENDING that Darwin describes the COMPLETE sum of our knowledge of evolution.. Generally not in favor of MOCKING founding ideas --- even IF they've morphed considerably.. But neither do I suffer idiots who cling to Darwin and ignore the NEXT 150 years of science..