DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

[Youwerecreated]

1.) Yes, every creature evolved from Adam and Eve.

2.) Fossils are a tool of Satan to trick you. Any science having anything to do with fossils should be ignored, and those trying to use them are satan-worshippers.

3.) Whatever words they type and put to print, should be burned with a Bible put in its place.

Look please stop with the nonsense,the fossil record is better supported by creation not evolution.

The fossil record is the worst form of so called evidence your side brings up. Stasis in the fossil record and fossils found in the wrong strata is a very strong argument agains't your theory.

You Guys ARE the missing link,at last we have found YOU

There are no missing links because what you believe never happened and is not happening.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A gene change has to become the norm in a population big or small.

 

[konradv]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
(Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)

Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]"
(Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)

Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
(Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

How about living in the present? Evolutionary scientists aren't going to defend a older version of the theory. The science has progressed and so has the theory. Read up on "punctuated equilibrium" and then get back to us. To defend Darwin's original ideas would be like expecting Newtonian mechanics to apply at relativistic speeds. Science has moved on. So should you.

 

[konradv]

Successful evolution implies that only beneficial changes survive over the long haul. What I want to know is .... how far back in evolution did the concept of male & female begin? Obviously, there was a separation along the lines somewhere. So, if they separated, how did they evolve at the same pace as each other?

Because they were mixing their DNA every generation.

 

[konradv]

Non-change is consistent with he theory of change?

Periods of "stasis", but even that is superficial rather than fundamental. Changes add up over time in relatively small populations leaving little evidence until such time as an adaptation confers a major advantage or a change in the environment favors the new species and the population explodes.

Are you saying mutation fixation is easily achieved over time ?

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

Here is a debate explaining the problem for trait change becoming fixed in a population.

Streaming Media - Debate on Origins of Life - Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero

That first cite turned out to be BS in the first paragraph!

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

It would be contrary to the 2nd Law, if we were in a closed system. Since we aren't, the statement above shows a basic error in the whole thesis, making it worthless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Successful evolution implies that only beneficial changes survive over the long haul. What I want to know is .... how far back in evolution did the concept of male & female begin? Obviously, there was a separation along the lines somewhere. So, if they separated, how did they evolve at the same pace as each other?

Because they were mixing their DNA every generation.

If male and female did not exist the human race would have went extinct,is that just another precise coincedence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Periods of "stasis", but even that is superficial rather than fundamental. Changes add up over time in relatively small populations leaving little evidence until such time as an adaptation confers a major advantage or a change in the environment favors the new species and the population explodes.

Are you saying mutation fixation is easily achieved over time ?

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

Here is a debate explaining the problem for trait change becoming fixed in a population.

Streaming Media - Debate on Origins of Life - Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero

That first cite turned out to be BS in the first paragraph!

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

It would be contrary to the 2nd Law, if we were in a closed system. Since we aren't, the statement above shows a basic error in the whole thesis, making it worthless.

Sorry have to disagree with you.

Do you want to compare the number of benefits from mutations vs the harmful genetic disorders due to mutations in humans ?

It's a proven fact that in flies mutations in the offspring shotened the lives of the flies even the neutral mutations.

Let's look at a car if a mutation in a car added a mirror but lost the ability to hold oil would that be a beneficial mutation ? But that is a lot of what I saw in mutations with flies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Successful evolution implies that only beneficial changes survive over the long haul. What I want to know is .... how far back in evolution did the concept of male & female begin? Obviously, there was a separation along the lines somewhere. So, if they separated, how did they evolve at the same pace as each other?

Because they were mixing their DNA every generation.

How could they mix their DNA if there were no means of reproduction ?

 

[fred1369]

BTW, and this may have been brought up before, since evolution takes place in the DNA, that means that the egg came before the chicken.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

According to the Macroevolution Theory, the first living organism developed from nonliving matter and became the "common ancestor" of all the different forms of life that have ever existed on earth, including humans. All of this is believed to have happened without intelligent direction or supernatural intervention by God. It just happened by itself.

Creation, on the other hand, is the conclusion that the appearing of living things can only be explained by the existence of an Almighty God who designed and made the universe and all the different kinds of life on earth. (Sources: (1) LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Pages 10-11; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, page 1018)

As you can see, these two positions are exact opposites. Those who accept evolution argue that creation is not scientific. But in fairness, it could also be asked: Is macroevolution theory scientific? Which of these positions are in harmony with modern scientific discoveries?

Keep in mind that more than 150 years have passed since Charles Darwin wrote his book Origin of Species. Charles Darwin predicted that future generations would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. As of this date, not one single fossil (bone of long-dead animals) has been found that connects one species of animals to a completely different species. This is what paleontologists (scientists who study ancient bones) have repeatedly admitted while they continue to insist all living creatures came from a "common ancestor." In other words, the scientific evidence does not support macroevolution theory.

 

[konradv]

Successful evolution implies that only beneficial changes survive over the long haul. What I want to know is .... how far back in evolution did the concept of male & female begin? Obviously, there was a separation along the lines somewhere. So, if they separated, how did they evolve at the same pace as each other?

Because they were mixing their DNA every generation.

How could they mix their DNA if there were no means of reproduction ?

Why no reproduction? The question asked was about the time after the separation of male and female. right?

 

[konradv]

BTW, and this may have been brought up before, since evolution takes place in the DNA, that means that the egg came before the chicken.

True, the first chicken came out of an egg laid by an end-stage, proto-chicken. Another way of looking at the conundrum is that the simplest living things are single-celled; eggs are single-celled; therefore all life came from the "egg" first.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below is a comment from another paleontologist having to admit there's no evidence of macro-evolution to be found in the fossils.

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

 

[newpolitics]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
(Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]"
(Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
(Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

~***~​

wow, you're wrong. you have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says, as you just demonstrated. we would never expect a whale to turn into a bear. we share a common ancestor.

I have to say, that given creationists complete inability to understand even the most basic principles of evolution, that creationists can't actually claim to disbelieve evolution. They disbelieve a strawman they have built of evolution, and therefore can't claim to disbelieve it until they actual understand it. Until they try to learn about it and stop expecting everyone else to explain it to them, these stupid and idiotic discussions will continue.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
(Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]"
(Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
(Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

~***~​

wow, you're wrong. you have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says, as you just demonstrated. we would never expect a whale to turn into a bear. we share a common ancestor.

I have to say, that given creationists complete inability to understand even the most basic principles of evolution, that creationists can't actually claim to disbelieve evolution. They disbelieve a strawman they have built of evolution, and therefore can't claim to disbelieve it until they actual understand it. Until they try to learn about it and stop expecting everyone else to explain it to them, these stupid and idiotic discussions will continue.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEW POLITICS:
I presented the scientific definition of evolution theory in my OP, and you're telling me I'm "wrong" and that I "have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says." Where is your documentary evidence to prove your claim that I'm wrong? All you've provided thus far is your personal opinions. Since everybody on this planet has an opinion, your opinion isn't proof of anything.

Suppose you present the forum with the correct definition of evolution theory? Be sure and provide quotations from scientific sources to prove your point. Also, be sure and identify your sources by providing weblinks or by naming of publication(s) and name of the author(s).

 

[newpolitics]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
(Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]"
(Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
(Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

~***~​

wow, you're wrong. you have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says, as you just demonstrated. we would never expect a whale to turn into a bear. we share a common ancestor.

I have to say, that given creationists complete inability to understand even the most basic principles of evolution, that creationists can't actually claim to disbelieve evolution. They disbelieve a strawman they have built of evolution, and therefore can't claim to disbelieve it until they actual understand it. Until they try to learn about it and stop expecting everyone else to explain it to them, these stupid and idiotic discussions will continue.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEW POLITICS:
I presented the scientific definition of evolution theory in my OP, and you're telling me I'm "wrong" and that I "have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says." Where is your documentary evidence to prove your claim that I'm wrong? All you've provided thus far is your personal opinions. Since everybody on this planet has an opinion, your opinion isn't proof of anything.

Suppose you present the forum with the correct definition of evolution theory? Be sure and provide quotations from scientific sources to prove your point. Also, be sure and identify your sources by providing weblinks or by naming of publication(s) and name of the author(s).

I stand by what I said. You are making the claim, you carry the burden of proof, not me. All you did was quote mine and use arguments from authority. No where in your post did you actually demonstrate your point. Try doing a little actual homework.

 

[Hollie]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There are no fossils in existence showing that humans and animals evolved from something else to what they presently are. No fossils exist that show evolutionary transition of one type of animal to an entirely different type of animal--for instance, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.) Even paleontologists that are pro-evolution have had to admit to this for the last 30 years or more. Below are just three such examples.

According to the Bulletin of Chicago: Charles Darwin "was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
(Source: Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Chicago, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," by David M. Raup, January 1979, pages 22, 23, 25)


Scientist Steven Stanley spoke of "the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another." He went on further to say: "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution.]"
(Source: The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, pages 71 and 77)


Yet another scientist, Niles Eldredge, also admitted: "The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist."
(Source: The Enterprise, November 14, 1980, page E9)

~***~​

What is it with fundie creationists? Here again, we see the diseased ramblings of "quote-miners" who cut and paste from christian creationist websites without ever spending the time to verify the accuray of the data.

The falsified, edited, parsed and out of context "quotes" were all familiar. The Talkorigins site has an extensive list of these creationist "quotes" and links/references to other locations so your cutting and pasting is easy to debunk.


http://commondescent.net/articles/Raup_quote.htm

Re:, your "quote" #1.

Yes, Raup did say this (in "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin Jan. 1979, Vol. 50 No. 1 p. 22-29). Here is the quote in the immediate context (the quoted portions in boldface):

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record whichdoes show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."(p. 25)

Note that while Raup says that some of the examples have been "discarded" he also says that others have only been "modified". For example the classic horse series Raup mentions is one of those that has been modified, but it is far from discarded. Also note that Raup clearly states that the pattern of the fossil record is one of change in living things over geologic time, something that young earth creationists deny.

And yes it has been taken out of context. The paper is about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:
"Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence form fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and theexplanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggesthow the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be." (p. 22)

The transitions Raup seems to be talking about in the quote creationists use are mostly at the level of species or genera (like between a horse and a zebra or between a fox and a wolf), not intermediates between higher classifications like between classes, orders, or families (between reptiles and mammals etc.), which are the ones creationists most object to. However it is these "missing" species level transitions that creationists (in ignorance?) often quote paleontologists talking about. This seems to be the case here as well:
"There were several problems, but the principle one was that the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another. . ." (p. 23, emphasis mine)


I won't waste bandwidth on your 2nd and 3rd "quotes" except to provide a link to where you can see your errors, omissions and falsehoods.

List of quotes out of context - RationalWiki

 

[Hollie]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Below is a comment from another paleontologist having to admit there's no evidence of macro-evolution to be found in the fossils.

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Yet another bit of dishonest "quote-mining"

Look here: Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

and scroll down to Quote #25.


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)


"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

- David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Palaeontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, pp. 22, 25, Chicago, January 1979.

• A critical analysis of the scientific material in the book: Life - How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?

 

[konradv]

Look please stop with the nonsense,the fossil record is better supported by creation not evolution.

The fossil record is the worst form of so called evidence your side brings up. Stasis in the fossil record and fossils found in the wrong strata is a very strong argument agains't your theory.

Stasis didn't require discarding the theory, just tweeking it, i.e. punctuated equilibrium. Otherwise, how would you explain fossils seperated by a billion years, if you postulate a single creation event.

Fossils found in the wrong strata are invariably shown to be caused by natural or man-made perturbations of the strata, NOT because they've been created at the same time. You won't find doplhin fossile with trilobite fossils, unless the strata have been disturbed in some way. That's been the case for every instance studied.

 

[Alter2Ego]

wow, you're wrong. you have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says, as you just demonstrated. we would never expect a whale to turn into a bear. we share a common ancestor.

I have to say, that given creationists complete inability to understand even the most basic principles of evolution, that creationists can't actually claim to disbelieve evolution. They disbelieve a strawman they have built of evolution, and therefore can't claim to disbelieve it until they actual understand it. Until they try to learn about it and stop expecting everyone else to explain it to them, these stupid and idiotic discussions will continue.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEW POLITICS:
I presented the scientific definition of evolution theory in my OP, and you're telling me I'm "wrong" and that I "have zero understanding of what evolutionary theory says." Where is your documentary evidence to prove your claim that I'm wrong? All you've provided thus far is your personal opinions. Since everybody on this planet has an opinion, your opinion isn't proof of anything.

Suppose you present the forum with the correct definition of evolution theory? Be sure and provide quotations from scientific sources to prove your point. Also, be sure and identify your sources by providing weblinks or by naming of publication(s) and name of the author(s).

I stand by what I said. You are making the claim, you carry the burden of proof, not me. All you did was quote mine and use arguments from authority. No where in your post did you actually demonstrate your point. Try doing a little actual homework.

ALTER2EGO -to- NEW POLITICS:

So you stand by what you said. And?

Without documentary evidence to prove someone wrong (by quoting credible sources that rebut the other person's sources), merely saying that someone else is wrong and that the person does not have proof is meaningless. The reality is that I presented proof in my OP by quoting several independent sources. It's not my problem that you can't cope with reality.

In my opening post I gave an accurate definition of macroevolution and microevolution theory from two different school textbooks. Additionally, I quoted Charles Darwin and Ernst Mayr. On top of that, I presented the definition of "evolution" and provide a weblink to the source. Meanwhile, you've presented nothing from any source to prove to the forum why my OP is wrong.

I debate at other websites, so I'm familiar with your game. I refer to it as the "Artful Dodger" routine. I could present evidence from now until kingdom come, and all you have to do is stay on your soap box and claim I bear the burden of proof, while you continue to present no documentary evidence from credible sources to rebut my sources.

Go play your little games with somebody else. In your next attempt at looking smart, if you don't present credible sources, don't expect any further responses from me.