Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's important to understand that the criticisms of Evolution are ideological, not scientific. It comes primarily from the religious right because they have a vested interest in destroying the scientific explanation of the origins of life.
The religious right is not interested in scientific discovery. They are interested in promoting their religion first and foremost. Evolution challenges the Christian narrative of God creating the universe. Destroy the theory of Evolution and you destroy a primary criticism of the existence of God.
Sorry you were unable to understand the issue.....really, it's quite simple: the evidence that is needed to support Darwin's theory, in reverence to the Cambrian Explosion is AWOL.
There is no denying that, other than outright lying.
Therefore, the question remains.....is there some other explanation?
Get it?
At the present time, the modern Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientific Theories. It is supported by every cell in your body, PC. Cells which have over 90% of the same genetic material as a chimpanzee.
The geological record has many very complete records of evolution. From the formations of the Karoo, to the John Day Formation here in Oregon. But, giving links to these is a waste of effort, PC. For your objections to the Theory of Evolution are based on a world view that is definately 18th century.
I have no objections to any concept documented with proof.
If you understood science, you'd feel the same way.
It's important to understand that the criticisms of Evolution are ideological, not scientific. It comes primarily from the religious right because they have a vested interest in destroying the scientific explanation of the origins of life.
The religious right is not interested in scientific discovery. They are interested in promoting their religion first and foremost. Evolution challenges the Christian narrative of God creating the universe. Destroy the theory of Evolution and you destroy a primary criticism of the existence of God.
Sorry you were unable to understand the issue.....really, it's quite simple: the evidence that is needed to support Darwin's theory, in reverence to the Cambrian Explosion is AWOL.
There is no denying that, other than outright lying.
Therefore, the question remains.....is there some other explanation?
Get it?
I'd like to know what [MENTION=44662]orogenicman[/MENTION] thinks about this.
He knows a lot about science.
**********************************************Yeeshhh......anyone dares to criticize Scientology and they face all kinds of abuse, up to and including finding a rattlesnake in their mailbox!
This entire thread is born out of fear and ignorance: Fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand it and feel threatened by it so you attack it. It is irrational, and not based on reasoned understanding. And ignorance of the massive amounts of data that supports the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the benefits we all enjoy because of research that originated from the application of that theory. Research that continues to this day.
Perhaps not to that extent....but dare to criticize evolution theory and the vituperation and verbal abuse....including slander and lies.....is but a moment away!
Oh please.
Why don't you get a science education and find out?
Why should we be nice? Would you be nice to a pharmacist who sold you a pint of petroleum jelly and called it a cure for cancer? What we have here are utterly unqualified individuals spending fortunes (likely stolen from their congregations) to try to get naïve and undereducated people to believe that they are eminently qualified to tell people that the theory of evolution is a lie - a theory that is based on 150 year years of hard-won scientific enquiry.
Is he wrong? I don't think he is.
Why are we so incensed? Because you people think you can sit at the table at school board meetings across the country and pretend that you have equal academic status to decide what should and should not be taught in our science classrooms.
Utterly absurd. Science goes where the data leads it, and I think Berlinski, of all people, should understand this. David Berlinski is one of the principles of the Discovery Institute, the same religious organization that tried to get ID taught in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, the same organization that was roundhoused by a Bush-appointed Federal judge because they were misleading people into believing that ID was something other than what it actually was - creationism, which cannot, according to SCOTUS rulings, be taught in our public schools because it is a religious doctrine, not science.
The only ones deluding themselves are people like Berlinksi, who, by the way, has no professional credentials in paleontology, and is well known for quote mining.
Murchison was a brilliant stratigrapher, and correctly identified the Silurian system. However, no one had yet correctly identified the Ordovician, the Cambrian, or the precambrian, and he did not understand when he made that statement that Trilobites did not originate in the Silurian system. What's more, the eye did not originate in trilobites, since many other organisms before them also had eyes. Furthermore, neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary scientist since has suggested that there is an arrow of complexity in evolution, as I've pointed out to you MANY times. Species adapt to their environment. The more unstable the environment, the more adaptable they must be. The more stable the environment, the LESS adaptable they need to be. Darwin understood natural selection, but did not understand genetic drift - no one in his day did. Murshison was more of a Lamarkian at the time of his discovery of the Silurian system.
This is a classic example of taking quotes out of context - quote mining.
Write this down and stick it on the side of your monitor for future reference - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL". Got it?
Let's see what he actually said (put it back into context):
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf
Notice that what he is talking about is the fact that many strata that would be useful to science in answering these questions were not known to be available in Europe but that they WERE available in Russia and North America, which has vast deposits of Silurian and much older rocks, including all the rocks he needed to more fully use to describe his theory.
Keep in mind that these gentlemen were discussing the state of the science IN THEIR DAY. 150 years have transpired since these conversations took place. And in that time, we have advanced by orders of magnitude our understanding of the fossil and stratigraphic record. So here we have Berlinski trying to convince us that these 19th century conversations about what was then the unknown is applicable to today's science where they have long been addressed to the satisfaction of every geologist and biologist alive (except Berlinski, of course).
Let's read what he actually said, shall we"
If I did not think you a good tempered & truth loving man I should not tell you that. . . I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous-- You have deserted-- after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth-- the true method of induction. . .
Keep in mind that Sedgewick subscribed to the theory of catastrophism, which fell out of favor soon after his death. Darwin's research was one of several nails in the coffin that sank that theory, and so it should surprise no one that despite their long-time friendship, Sedgewick would be a bit upset with his findings.
Also note that in the very article where you took that quote, we find this:
He (Sedgewick) originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"
So in concluding, what we find here is a very poorly constructed attempt to make one believe (via quote mining) that the state of 19th century science is the state in which we find scientific enquiry today, that it has not progressed, that none of Darwin's questions or doubts have been resolved, when the fact of the matter is that none of them have NOT been resolved.
Does the Theory of Evolution postulate that aliens came down after an intergalactic battle and deposited souls into volcanoes?
No?
Then no, they are nothing alike...
There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
**********************************************Yeeshhh......anyone dares to criticize Scientology and they face all kinds of abuse, up to and including finding a rattlesnake in their mailbox!
This entire thread is born out of fear and ignorance: Fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand it and feel threatened by it so you attack it. It is irrational, and not based on reasoned understanding. And ignorance of the massive amounts of data that supports the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the benefits we all enjoy because of research that originated from the application of that theory. Research that continues to this day.
Oh please.
Why don't you get a science education and find out?
Why should we be nice? Would you be nice to a pharmacist who sold you a pint of petroleum jelly and called it a cure for cancer? What we have here are utterly unqualified individuals spending fortunes (likely stolen from their congregations) to try to get naïve and undereducated people to believe that they are eminently qualified to tell people that the theory of evolution is a lie - a theory that is based on 150 year years of hard-won scientific enquiry.
Is he wrong? I don't think he is.
Why are we so incensed? Because you people think you can sit at the table at school board meetings across the country and pretend that you have equal academic status to decide what should and should not be taught in our science classrooms.
Utterly absurd. Science goes where the data leads it, and I think Berlinski, of all people, should understand this. David Berlinski is one of the principles of the Discovery Institute, the same religious organization that tried to get ID taught in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, the same organization that was roundhoused by a Bush-appointed Federal judge because they were misleading people into believing that ID was something other than what it actually was - creationism, which cannot, according to SCOTUS rulings, be taught in our public schools because it is a religious doctrine, not science.
The only ones deluding themselves are people like Berlinksi, who, by the way, has no professional credentials in paleontology, and is well known for quote mining.
Murchison was a brilliant stratigrapher, and correctly identified the Silurian system. However, no one had yet correctly identified the Ordovician, the Cambrian, or the precambrian, and he did not understand when he made that statement that Trilobites did not originate in the Silurian system. What's more, the eye did not originate in trilobites, since many other organisms before them also had eyes. Furthermore, neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary scientist since has suggested that there is an arrow of complexity in evolution, as I've pointed out to you MANY times. Species adapt to their environment. The more unstable the environment, the more adaptable they must be. The more stable the environment, the LESS adaptable they need to be. Darwin understood natural selection, but did not understand genetic drift - no one in his day did. Murshison was more of a Lamarkian at the time of his discovery of the Silurian system.
This is a classic example of taking quotes out of context - quote mining.
Write this down and stick it on the side of your monitor for future reference - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL". Got it?
Let's see what he actually said (put it back into context):
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf
Notice that what he is talking about is the fact that many strata that would be useful to science in answering these questions were not known to be available in Europe but that they WERE available in Russia and North America, which has vast deposits of Silurian and much older rocks, including all the rocks he needed to more fully use to describe his theory.
Keep in mind that these gentlemen were discussing the state of the science IN THEIR DAY. 150 years have transpired since these conversations took place. And in that time, we have advanced by orders of magnitude our understanding of the fossil and stratigraphic record. So here we have Berlinski trying to convince us that these 19th century conversations about what was then the unknown is applicable to today's science where they have long been addressed to the satisfaction of every geologist and biologist alive (except Berlinski, of course).
Let's read what he actually said, shall we"
Keep in mind that Sedgewick subscribed to the theory of catastrophism, which fell out of favor soon after his death. Darwin's research was one of several nails in the coffin that sank that theory, and so it should surprise no one that despite their long-time friendship, Sedgewick would be a bit upset with his findings.
Also note that in the very article where you took that quote, we find this:
He (Sedgewick) originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"
So in concluding, what we find here is a very poorly constructed attempt to make one believe (via quote mining) that the state of 19th century science is the state in which we find scientific enquiry today, that it has not progressed, that none of Darwin's questions or doubts have been resolved, when the fact of the matter is that none of them have NOT been resolved.
Bump. No response? I didn't think so.
There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
There's a lot more to the story since the days of Darwin and Murchison. Per usual you're cherry-picking information to fit your thesis.
How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences
It's important to understand that the criticisms of Evolution are ideological, not scientific. It comes primarily from the religious right because they have a vested interest in destroying the scientific explanation of the origins of life.
The religious right is not interested in scientific discovery. They are interested in promoting their religion first and foremost. Evolution challenges the Christian narrative of God creating the universe. Destroy the theory of Evolution and you destroy a primary criticism of the existence of God.
Sorry you were unable to understand the issue.....really, it's quite simple: the evidence that is needed to support Darwin's theory, in reverence to the Cambrian Explosion is AWOL.
There is no denying that, other than outright lying.
Therefore, the question remains.....is there some other explanation?
Get it?
Being as clueless as you are to even the most basic precepts of the many sciences that support evolutionary biology makes you a poor candidate for any critique.
You are capable only of cutting and pasting from extremist websites. Why would you think that your cutting and pasting of phony, edited and parsed "quotes" would be taken seriously?
**********************************************This entire thread is born out of fear and ignorance: Fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand it and feel threatened by it so you attack it. It is irrational, and not based on reasoned understanding. And ignorance of the massive amounts of data that supports the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the benefits we all enjoy because of research that originated from the application of that theory. Research that continues to this day.
Oh please.
Why don't you get a science education and find out?
Why should we be nice? Would you be nice to a pharmacist who sold you a pint of petroleum jelly and called it a cure for cancer? What we have here are utterly unqualified individuals spending fortunes (likely stolen from their congregations) to try to get naïve and undereducated people to believe that they are eminently qualified to tell people that the theory of evolution is a lie - a theory that is based on 150 year years of hard-won scientific enquiry.
Is he wrong? I don't think he is.
Why are we so incensed? Because you people think you can sit at the table at school board meetings across the country and pretend that you have equal academic status to decide what should and should not be taught in our science classrooms.
Utterly absurd. Science goes where the data leads it, and I think Berlinski, of all people, should understand this. David Berlinski is one of the principles of the Discovery Institute, the same religious organization that tried to get ID taught in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, the same organization that was roundhoused by a Bush-appointed Federal judge because they were misleading people into believing that ID was something other than what it actually was - creationism, which cannot, according to SCOTUS rulings, be taught in our public schools because it is a religious doctrine, not science.
The only ones deluding themselves are people like Berlinksi, who, by the way, has no professional credentials in paleontology, and is well known for quote mining.
Murchison was a brilliant stratigrapher, and correctly identified the Silurian system. However, no one had yet correctly identified the Ordovician, the Cambrian, or the precambrian, and he did not understand when he made that statement that Trilobites did not originate in the Silurian system. What's more, the eye did not originate in trilobites, since many other organisms before them also had eyes. Furthermore, neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary scientist since has suggested that there is an arrow of complexity in evolution, as I've pointed out to you MANY times. Species adapt to their environment. The more unstable the environment, the more adaptable they must be. The more stable the environment, the LESS adaptable they need to be. Darwin understood natural selection, but did not understand genetic drift - no one in his day did. Murshison was more of a Lamarkian at the time of his discovery of the Silurian system.
This is a classic example of taking quotes out of context - quote mining.
Write this down and stick it on the side of your monitor for future reference - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL". Got it?
Let's see what he actually said (put it back into context):
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf
Notice that what he is talking about is the fact that many strata that would be useful to science in answering these questions were not known to be available in Europe but that they WERE available in Russia and North America, which has vast deposits of Silurian and much older rocks, including all the rocks he needed to more fully use to describe his theory.
Keep in mind that these gentlemen were discussing the state of the science IN THEIR DAY. 150 years have transpired since these conversations took place. And in that time, we have advanced by orders of magnitude our understanding of the fossil and stratigraphic record. So here we have Berlinski trying to convince us that these 19th century conversations about what was then the unknown is applicable to today's science where they have long been addressed to the satisfaction of every geologist and biologist alive (except Berlinski, of course).
Let's read what he actually said, shall we"
Keep in mind that Sedgewick subscribed to the theory of catastrophism, which fell out of favor soon after his death. Darwin's research was one of several nails in the coffin that sank that theory, and so it should surprise no one that despite their long-time friendship, Sedgewick would be a bit upset with his findings.
Also note that in the very article where you took that quote, we find this:
So in concluding, what we find here is a very poorly constructed attempt to make one believe (via quote mining) that the state of 19th century science is the state in which we find scientific enquiry today, that it has not progressed, that none of Darwin's questions or doubts have been resolved, when the fact of the matter is that none of them have NOT been resolved.
Bump. No response? I didn't think so.
1. Lets get this straight.
You are not honorable. You lie.
OK...Hollie lies...but she's fun, as in comic relief.
2. Back to you. You know far less than you imply you know....and you really aren't smart.
I give you answers, and a finite amount of time....but you're one of those posters who simply comes back with "Oh, yeah...that's what you think! How about [followed by a change of subject.]
a. An example of how you slither away?
You: 'You've concentrated on Trilobites and brachiopods, and have intentionally ignored the evidence found in many other known Cambrian species.'
Me: That's pretty funny.
It's like you disputing the word 'cars' is a history of automobiles.
"The "Age of Trilobites" and the Cambrian Fauna
The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites....The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"...."
You: "Yes, and the Holocene could be called the age of man, and yet there are millions of other species on this planet (most of which are more plentiful and more important to the global ecosystem than is man). Arguably the most abundant and more important life form during the Cambrian were the cyanobacteria (and still is). "http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-19.html
3. And, of course, you lie like a rug.
Me: You've already admitted that I am correct, and there are no fossils that document the Darwinian myth of simple cells, leading to the trilobites and brachiopods.
You:" I have admitted no such thing. Lying for Jesus is still lying." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-17.html
You, earlier: " PC, just because we haven't found the fossils of the earliest trilobites yet doesn't mean that they don't exist.... As for the brachiopods, there are suggestions of what group they had their origins, but again, the fossil record is as yet spotty. But PC, just like with trilobites, just because we have yet to find the fossils, does not mean they don't exist. Just because something is unknown doesn't mean that it is unknowable." http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-2.html
Evidence that you are a liar....and that engaging you in discussion is pointless.
Rather than admit that I am correct, you lie.
4. And, documentation of you both lying and attempting to change the subject:
You: " Evolution is already a well established science. If you want the documentation you seek, there are millions of books in the libraries of the world, and decades of research in the scientific periodicals. http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution-3.html
And, of course, this was subsequent to your admission that 'documentation' doesn't exist.
Note that you attempt to suggest that the argument is about whether or not evolution occurs, as you say " Evolution is already a well established science..." when my argument is very specific:
" It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/308464-how-to-define-evolution.html
So, I will continue to post correct....and specific material....and the more astute will see what a fake you are.
I think people need to understand that Darwinism is a theory which has not been proven. Yeah, I had the sciences and I know all the examples of a moth that turns black, and a lizard that turns brown, etc. etc. etc. But species dug up, floated up, or otherwise preserved have never been in a state of changing morphology. The bottom line is, and this is according to science, there is a large segment of human DNA that is not understood and not shared with any other animals. Mainstream scientists can't explain it and they have never found the 'missing link' that Darwin's theory requires for validation. There is a lot of not so mainstream science that purports that beings from other planets altered our DNA structure so we would be like them and could do work for them. They point to ancient sites all over the world which could not have been built with the Stone Age tools in use at the time, nor even be reproduced by modern engineering and technology as evidence. The world over, there is evidence of a previous advanced civilization. But mainstream science bears down on us to believe those megaliths were moved and the structures were created by stone age people using Stone Age tools, and the alternative theories purport that aliens built them.
I don't know if evolution is fact or not. The theory has not been proven, but a lot of people just accept it on 'faith' without the requisite missing link or other proof required by the scientific method. And you have seen that on this thread. Neither has the space ship involved in Scientology been proven. BUT I have seen the pyramids and I know this: If people tried to pull the stones in the Great Pyramid across the desert by rolling them on logs, the logs would sink in the sand under the weight of the stones, and then the stones would sink in the sand and would never have made it to Giza. Hell, I weigh 150 pounds, and my feet sank into the sands of the Giza Plateau. (Just as an aside, the pyramids are sinking into the Giza plateau. There is a device in the Great Pyramid that measures how much it sinks each year.)
People are challenging mainstream science every day. And good for them. I am so tired of being told what was 'in the minds' of ancient people by people who can't even reasonably assess what is in the minds of people who exist today. Mainstream scientists seem to have drawn a line in the hypothetical sand and simply will not acknowledge anything that challenges their theories. That's too bad. I think we are missing out on some real good learning because of it, too. I think the mainstream scientists are just a bunch of lazy old tenured profs who don't have to do anything much but eat and shit. They are too lazy to care about science.
Also, I would add that science is adamant that life only comes from life. That in first year Biology. Then they turn around and want to teach you that life originally came from inanimate substances. The scientific community has a bit of a problem with consistency and logic!
**********************************************Yeeshhh......anyone dares to criticize Scientology and they face all kinds of abuse, up to and including finding a rattlesnake in their mailbox!
This entire thread is born out of fear and ignorance: Fear of something you don't understand. You don't understand it and feel threatened by it so you attack it. It is irrational, and not based on reasoned understanding. And ignorance of the massive amounts of data that supports the theory of evolution. Ignorance of the benefits we all enjoy because of research that originated from the application of that theory. Research that continues to this day.
Oh please.
Why don't you get a science education and find out?
Why should we be nice? Would you be nice to a pharmacist who sold you a pint of petroleum jelly and called it a cure for cancer? What we have here are utterly unqualified individuals spending fortunes (likely stolen from their congregations) to try to get naïve and undereducated people to believe that they are eminently qualified to tell people that the theory of evolution is a lie - a theory that is based on 150 year years of hard-won scientific enquiry.
Is he wrong? I don't think he is.
Why are we so incensed? Because you people think you can sit at the table at school board meetings across the country and pretend that you have equal academic status to decide what should and should not be taught in our science classrooms.
Utterly absurd. Science goes where the data leads it, and I think Berlinski, of all people, should understand this. David Berlinski is one of the principles of the Discovery Institute, the same religious organization that tried to get ID taught in the schools in Dover, Pennsylvania, the same organization that was roundhoused by a Bush-appointed Federal judge because they were misleading people into believing that ID was something other than what it actually was - creationism, which cannot, according to SCOTUS rulings, be taught in our public schools because it is a religious doctrine, not science.
The only ones deluding themselves are people like Berlinksi, who, by the way, has no professional credentials in paleontology, and is well known for quote mining.
Murchison was a brilliant stratigrapher, and correctly identified the Silurian system. However, no one had yet correctly identified the Ordovician, the Cambrian, or the precambrian, and he did not understand when he made that statement that Trilobites did not originate in the Silurian system. What's more, the eye did not originate in trilobites, since many other organisms before them also had eyes. Furthermore, neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary scientist since has suggested that there is an arrow of complexity in evolution, as I've pointed out to you MANY times. Species adapt to their environment. The more unstable the environment, the more adaptable they must be. The more stable the environment, the LESS adaptable they need to be. Darwin understood natural selection, but did not understand genetic drift - no one in his day did. Murshison was more of a Lamarkian at the time of his discovery of the Silurian system.
This is a classic example of taking quotes out of context - quote mining.
Write this down and stick it on the side of your monitor for future reference - ALL SPECIES ARE TRANSITIONAL". Got it?
Let's see what he actually said (put it back into context):
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/darwin/originspecies.pdf
Notice that what he is talking about is the fact that many strata that would be useful to science in answering these questions were not known to be available in Europe but that they WERE available in Russia and North America, which has vast deposits of Silurian and much older rocks, including all the rocks he needed to more fully use to describe his theory.
Keep in mind that these gentlemen were discussing the state of the science IN THEIR DAY. 150 years have transpired since these conversations took place. And in that time, we have advanced by orders of magnitude our understanding of the fossil and stratigraphic record. So here we have Berlinski trying to convince us that these 19th century conversations about what was then the unknown is applicable to today's science where they have long been addressed to the satisfaction of every geologist and biologist alive (except Berlinski, of course).
Let's read what he actually said, shall we"
Keep in mind that Sedgewick subscribed to the theory of catastrophism, which fell out of favor soon after his death. Darwin's research was one of several nails in the coffin that sank that theory, and so it should surprise no one that despite their long-time friendship, Sedgewick would be a bit upset with his findings.
Also note that in the very article where you took that quote, we find this:
He (Sedgewick) originally followed his collegue William Buckland in believing that the uppermost Pleistocene deposits had been laid down by the Biblical Flood, but retracted this belief after many of these deposits turned out to have been formed by glaciers, not floods. Sedgwick also did not object to evolution, or "development" as such theories were called then, in the broad sense -- to the fact that the life on Earth had changed over time. Nor was he a young-Earth creationist; he believed that the Earth must be extremely old. As Darwin wrote of Sedgwick's lectures, "What a capital hand is Sedgewick [sic] for drawing large cheques upon the Bank of Time!"
So in concluding, what we find here is a very poorly constructed attempt to make one believe (via quote mining) that the state of 19th century science is the state in which we find scientific enquiry today, that it has not progressed, that none of Darwin's questions or doubts have been resolved, when the fact of the matter is that none of them have NOT been resolved.
Bump. No response? I didn't think so.
I think people need to understand that Darwinism is a theory which has not been proven. Yeah, I had the sciences and I know all the examples of a moth that turns black, and a lizard that turns brown, etc. etc. etc. But species dug up, floated up, or otherwise preserved have never been in a state of changing morphology. The bottom line is, and this is according to science, there is a large segment of human DNA that is not understood and not shared with any other animals. Mainstream scientists can't explain it and they have never found the 'missing link' that Darwin's theory requires for validation. There is a lot of not so mainstream science that purports that beings from other planets altered our DNA structure so we would be like them and could do work for them. They point to ancient sites all over the world which could not have been built with the Stone Age tools in use at the time, nor even be reproduced by modern engineering and technology as evidence. The world over, there is evidence of a previous advanced civilization. But mainstream science bears down on us to believe those megaliths were moved and the structures were created by stone age people using Stone Age tools, and the alternative theories purport that aliens built them.
I don't know if evolution is fact or not. The theory has not been proven, but a lot of people just accept it on 'faith' without the requisite missing link or other proof required by the scientific method. And you have seen that on this thread. Neither has the space ship involved in Scientology been proven. BUT I have seen the pyramids and I know this: If people tried to pull the stones in the Great Pyramid across the desert by rolling them on logs, the logs would sink in the sand under the weight of the stones, and then the stones would sink in the sand and would never have made it to Giza. Hell, I weigh 150 pounds, and my feet sank into the sands of the Giza Plateau. (Just as an aside, the pyramids are sinking into the Giza plateau. There is a device in the Great Pyramid that measures how much it sinks each year.)
People are challenging mainstream science every day. And good for them. I am so tired of being told what was 'in the minds' of ancient people by people who can't even reasonably assess what is in the minds of people who exist today. Mainstream scientists seem to have drawn a line in the hypothetical sand and simply will not acknowledge anything that challenges their theories. That's too bad. I think we are missing out on some real good learning because of it, too. I think the mainstream scientists are just a bunch of lazy old tenured profs who don't have to do anything much but eat and shit. They are too lazy to care about science.
Also, I would add that science is adamant that life only comes from life. That in first year Biology. Then they turn around and want to teach you that life originally came from inanimate substances. The scientific community has a bit of a problem with consistency and logic!
Hey, now.....just watch it!
If you keep this up, I may lose my fav piñata , Hollie.
Your post was brilliant!
Obviously you are one of the few that understands the issue.
There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
There's a lot more to the story since the days of Darwin and Murchison. Per usual you're cherry-picking information to fit your thesis.
How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences
Nonsense.
There are still no fossil's series documenting the changes that resulted in the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian...the 'age of the trilobites.'
There was Roderick Murchison, a Scottish geologist who first described and investigated the Silurian system, which he named after a Welsh tribe....he studied the lowest strata of fossils, which was in Wales. Some five years before the publication of Darwin's signature work, he pointed out the sudden appearance of complex organs, the compound eyes of the first trilobites. So, he said, trilobites could not have evolved gradually from some primitive, simple form:
"The earliest signs of living things, announcing as they do a high complexity of organization, entirely exclude the hypothesis of a transmutation from lower to higher grades of being."
Sir Roderick Impey Murchison, "Siluria," p.469.
There's a lot more to the story since the days of Darwin and Murchison. Per usual you're cherry-picking information to fit your thesis.
How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences
Nonsense.
There are still no fossil's series documenting the changes that resulted in the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian...the 'age of the trilobites.'
Sorry you were unable to understand the issue.....really, it's quite simple: the evidence that is needed to support Darwin's theory, in reverence to the Cambrian Explosion is AWOL.
There is no denying that, other than outright lying.
Therefore, the question remains.....is there some other explanation?
Get it?
Being as clueless as you are to even the most basic precepts of the many sciences that support evolutionary biology makes you a poor candidate for any critique.
You are capable only of cutting and pasting from extremist websites. Why would you think that your cutting and pasting of phony, edited and parsed "quotes" would be taken seriously?
So.....were are the requite fossils of trilobites and brachiopods?
I think people need to understand that Darwinism is a theory which has not been proven. Yeah, I had the sciences and I know all the examples of a moth that turns black, and a lizard that turns brown, etc. etc. etc. But species dug up, floated up, or otherwise preserved have never been in a state of changing morphology. The bottom line is, and this is according to science, there is a large segment of human DNA that is not understood and not shared with any other animals. Mainstream scientists can't explain it and they have never found the 'missing link' that Darwin's theory requires for validation. There is a lot of not so mainstream science that purports that beings from other planets altered our DNA structure so we would be like them and could do work for them. They point to ancient sites all over the world which could not have been built with the Stone Age tools in use at the time, nor even be reproduced by modern engineering and technology as evidence. The world over, there is evidence of a previous advanced civilization. But mainstream science bears down on us to believe those megaliths were moved and the structures were created by stone age people using Stone Age tools, and the alternative theories purport that aliens built them.
I don't know if evolution is fact or not. The theory has not been proven, but a lot of people just accept it on 'faith' without the requisite missing link or other proof required by the scientific method. And you have seen that on this thread. Neither has the space ship involved in Scientology been proven. BUT I have seen the pyramids and I know this: If people tried to pull the stones in the Great Pyramid across the desert by rolling them on logs, the logs would sink in the sand under the weight of the stones, and then the stones would sink in the sand and would never have made it to Giza. Hell, I weigh 150 pounds, and my feet sank into the sands of the Giza Plateau. (Just as an aside, the pyramids are sinking into the Giza plateau. There is a device in the Great Pyramid that measures how much it sinks each year.)
People are challenging mainstream science every day. And good for them. I am so tired of being told what was 'in the minds' of ancient people by people who can't even reasonably assess what is in the minds of people who exist today. Mainstream scientists seem to have drawn a line in the hypothetical sand and simply will not acknowledge anything that challenges their theories. That's too bad. I think we are missing out on some real good learning because of it, too. I think the mainstream scientists are just a bunch of lazy old tenured profs who don't have to do anything much but eat and shit. They are too lazy to care about science.
Also, I would add that science is adamant that life only comes from life. That in first year Biology. Then they turn around and want to teach you that life originally came from inanimate substances. The scientific community has a bit of a problem with consistency and logic!
Hey, now.....just watch it!
If you keep this up, I may lose my fav piñata , Hollie.
Your post was brilliant!
Obviously you are one of the few that understands the issue.
Thanks. Florence Nightingale did not believe in Germ Theory. But she believed in cleanliness. I found it fascinating to learn that. Scientists across the ages have been persecuted and killed over their research. So, I'm just flabbergasted how quickly and easily modern day people will go from 'maybe it was this way' to 'it was likely this way' to 'it WAS this way' on nothing but somebody's say so. If the scientific community has become complacent and lazy we are as much to blame as they are for not challenging them as we should be. Right now, the theories I find most fascinating are the Ancient Alien theories, and the theory that the Knights Templar made it to America and brought the bloodline of the Holy Grail, where the secret is guarded by modern day Freemasons. But, though fascinating, they both have holes in them. The Ancient Alien theorists do not allow for the possibility of there being a previous advanced civilization and the Templar theory does not allow for the fact that one does not have to be a Christian to be a Freemason, so other religions would not be much interested in the Holy Grail. A theory is a theory is a theory until it is proven fact. And neither Darwinism NOR Scientology have been proven.
