Re: Fossil record resembles Creation, Not Large Scale Evolution

On Feb 19, 12:40 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Art Biele wrote:
see also:http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a
predecessor. One species that existed previously turned into something
else over time, and all species have come into being in this way.

According to the Darwins theory on how evolution occurs, this
transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. Very long
lineages of descent with very gradual modification, producing
innumerable generations of intermediate species, each diverting
lineage undergoing the transformations of accumulating new organs and
body plans that ancestors did not have, but very gradually over long
periods of time.

That's actually not what Darwin's theory claims. Like many, you have
confused your time scales here. Darwin called for gradual change between
generations, but this doesn't translate into slow change over millions
of generations. Big changes can happen over a few thousand years, but
that's instantaneous in terms of the fossil record.

In the first edition of his 'Origin of the Species', Darwin estimated
the Earth's age to be hundreds million years old.

And, perhaps you, John, can share with me some of these big
evolutionary changes that happen in thousands of years. Please do not
waste your time on Darwin's Finches or other radiations such as
cichlids Globeringnae, and the wolf, or Bears, etc. These are all
handiliy explained by Mendellian Genetics and are known to occur in
years or hundreds of years, etc. and are simply radiations of existing
genes so that these creatures can adapt to and survive in various and
varying ecological niches while eliminating those members of a species
that have become unfit due to random mutations. This great intelligent
idea for body plans come from our Designer, God, to enhance the
ability His creation, the species, to survive. This is the very
purpose of Natural Selection. And humans need not fret over death, we
are spirits that occupy these self-reproducing machines made by God.



If this were true, there had to be billions of such creatures that
made up these evolutionary trends. More importantly, the remains of
these creatures should be present in the fossil record, documenting
the millions of the predicted gradual trends of morphological
evolutionary transformations, also known as ‘phylogenies’. This is the
one solid real science prediction of evolution, that we would be able
to see it in the fossil record if such broad-scale evolution is true.

The fossil record embarrassed Charles Darwin. It was suppose to
provide and establish these innumerable phylogenies, but few could be
found in his day, and these few were questionable. A contemporary of
Darwin, a paleontologist, questioned Darwin’s Theory by pointing that
if Darwin’s Theory be true, why do each successive layer of fossil
beds merely have the same unchanged fossils of each type of animal or
plant that are found at the different layers.
Darwin was well aware of this, and in his book, Charles Darwin
attempts to explain this ‘unpleasant’ fact away by appealing to the
imperfection of the fossil record in his day. Darwin gambled the
validity of his theory on his prediction that future generations of
paleontologists will discover the phylogenies. For the next 100 and so
years after Darwin, Paleontologists (and others) traveled the world
hoping to make a name for themselves by finding these phylogenies that
Darwin’s Theory predicts, must exist.

They were never found in the geological record. They do not exist. Not
even one.

If you're looking for these smooth and gradual transitions taking
millions of years, you are indeed unlikely to find them. First, because
of the fragmentary record: we just don't have very many continuous
fossil deposits covering every year over millions of years. Second,
because evolution doesn't work by this strawman gradualism.

At least you admit the fossil evidence for evolution of all species is
non-existant. And keep in mind that there exist no clear scientific
definition for Species, Mayr is correct, evolutionists use the term
'species' to mean whatever they want it to mean.

What we have instead are a great many transitional fossils, such as
Archaeopteryx, Probainognathus, Tiktaalik, and so on. More every year,
just as Darwin expected.

Now you engage in the fallacy of 'special pleading', a single species
used to prove Darwin's Theory due to the evolutionary scientists
complete failure to establish phylogenies.

All creature types, extinct and extant, are considered to be
transistional by evolutionists except for those that became extinct
and are that last of their line. This definition is derived from the
assumption of evolution. Their is no sound science connecting the
diverse Creature types as sharing a common ancestry. Evolutionists
connect the dots of their phylogenetic tree purely with their
imaginations. What is needed to demonstrate Evolution of all species
from an alleged single progenote to those species extinct or extant
is the establishment of phylogenies. Something the fossil record does
not support at all.



Testimonies to this fact include:

Botanist and evolutionist Dr. Heribert Nilsson (From a 1953 Science
Journal, as quoted in Arthur C Constance book: `The Earth Before Man',
part 2, Doorway Publications, Ontario Canada, 1984):

"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 a preconceived anti-Evolutionary
standpoint. ... It may be firmly maintained that it is not even
possible to make even a caricature of an Evolution out of paleo-
biological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has
been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional
series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material.
The deficiencies are real, they never will be filled."

You're an idiot. This doesn't come from a science journal, but from
Heribert Nilsson's (all his last name, by the way) book Synthetische
Artbildung. He wasn't an evolutionist, but a sort of bizarre
catastrophist. Creationists love to quote him, even at third hand.

Ad Hominem attack noted.

All real geologists are Catastrophists, as opposed to Lyell and Darwin
who were wrongly uniformatarian gradualists.

Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard,
in ‘Natural History’ Feb 1975 p.16.

‘Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the
most brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon
true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only
true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the
catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The
geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured
and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal
appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The
geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must
interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The
catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the
blinded theological apologists.’

Heribert Nilsson was a famous and well respected botanist and
geneticist and his intent over 40 years was to confirm Darwins Theory
of Evolution. Like Stephen Gould and most other top geologists,
Heribert Nilsson had long abandoned Darwin's and Lyell's gradualism,
and ultimately, his 40 years of trying to prove evolution from the
fossil record ended in total failure. Yes, Nilsson entertained ideas
relating to genetics that were novel said to be wrong, but it is also
wrong to assume someone who turned out wrong on a hypothesis he
entertained therefore must wrong on his field work in which he
attempted to establish the phylogenies predicted by Darwinian Theory,
of which Nilsson was a most capable investigator of the fossil record,
and he initiated this task as a firm believer in Darwinism. Like many
other scientists, the task proved to be ipossible, the evidence simply
does not exist.

This is as far as I can go right now.

Thanks for your reply,

Best Wishes to you and yours, John Harshman.

Art Biele

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Scientific Americans Faulty Criticism of Expelled
    ... Wallace, co-founder of Darwin's Theory, wanted Darwin to drop his ... first biologist to notice the appearance of variation within species. ... for fossils this is demonstrably false. ... the fossil record is zero evolution over time. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwinian Mechanism of Mutation and Natural Selection Found Lacking
    ... who openly question the theory of evolution. ... problem with evolution is that the fossil record does not honestly ... Gould was referring to was stasis in individual species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gaps in the fossil record.
    ... though we find 4 specimens of species "A" and 5 specimens of species ... with the crock of evolution and want us to believe it *mostly* based on ... Our acceptance of evolution has *nothing* to do with the fossil record. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... Islands, but that figure had dropped in modern times to 13 species, 3 ... a rapid increase in long beak finches over just a two to three year ... 'evolution' alive. ... Darwin and his pro-evolution anti-Bible mentors ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... >>> It was once claimed by evolutionists that the Finches found on the ... They once claimed up to 31 species of finch lived on those ... >'evolution' alive. ... Several people did propose natural selection before Darwin, but to the best of my knowledge Lyell was not one of them. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading