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?
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?
