Destroying Darwinism: Getting Technical

[ScienceRocks]

Who says evolution has to be slow? Let's say that the environment that the species are within could very well go from A to B quite fast.

 

[rdean]

1. I noticed that a recent thread tried to base support for Darwin's theory on the work of neo-Marxist Stephen J. Gould......

Gould used, as a basis for his attempted defense of Darwinism, Karl Marx's theory of history, and called it 'Punctuated Equilibrium.'

Gould danced around the fact that he could find no evidence to support either.

Rather than attempt to classify the new and different organism found in the Burgess Shale, Stephen Gould actually characterized the creatures as being so exotic as to defy affinity in classification with any modern groups. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7258/full/460952a.html





2. The Burgess Shale attests to an extraordinary profusion of new animal forms, including unique anatomical structures not seen before in earlier life forms, and new arrangements of body parts.
Whatever their classification, it is their origin that requires explanation.
How, exactly, does the biological information necessary to produce new characteristics originate?

a. Darwinians can not explain where all the DNA information came along in such a short period of time
Jun-Yuan Chen and Cambrian explosion




3. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.
So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?

4. Although it requires an extensive understanding of anatomy, this itself argues against Darwin's thesis. The arthropod exoskeleton is not the only part that had to develop, since it is merely one part of a tightly integrated system which is necessary in order to allow molting and exoskeleton growth....think of a crab. The system, the 'endophragmal system'-

A Text-book of Zoology - Thomas Jeffery Parker, William Aitcheson Haswell - Google Books

- involves muscles, tendons, tissues and sensory organs and the special mediating structure between the soft tissue of the arthropod and the exoskeleton itself.

So....for Darwin to be correct, there should be signs of each, of all, of these distinct structures evolving prior to the fully-formed organism being found in the fossil record.
Should be such evidence....or, an explanation posed as to why there is none.





5. Let's not forget that the order of events is critical, and therefore limited by the timeframe. Consider this complication: such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity.
This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.





6. DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482 protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 ‘letters,’—humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See ‘The programs of life’, for an explanation of the DNA ‘letters.&#8217
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?

7. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content Gitt, W., Dazzling design in miniature, Creation 20(1):6, 1997

Putting it another way, while we think that our new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.


a. Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself [through matter] . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. " (Gitt, p. 124). [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]





To short-circuit the expected criticism.....let's remind all that there is no reference to, nor reliance on, religion, nor the Bible, in this well-constructed destruction of Dawin's theory of evolution.
This critique is based purely on the science behind Darwin's theory....or the absence of same.



Of course, if any would rather attack me rather than confront the OP....I do love attention.

Hey, did Pat Robertson call you and your ilk a clown?

 

[S.J.]

Who says evolution has to be slow? Let's say that the environment that the species are within could very well go from A to B quite fast.

When asked why humans haven't evolved since man has been keeping records, the evolutionists always answer by saying "it happens over millions of years". You can't have it both ways.

 

[orogenicman]

Who says evolution has to be slow? Let's say that the environment that the species are within could very well go from A to B quite fast.

When asked why humans haven't evolved since man has been keeping records, the evolutionists always answer by saying "it happens over millions of years". You can't have it both ways.

Humans are still evolving. You didn't know this? Huh.

Are humans still evolving? | I, Science

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

Are Humans Still Evolving? : Discovery News

Human Evolution: Are Humans Still Evolving? - TIME

Are Humans Still Evolving? Absolutely, Says A New Analysis Of A Long-term Survey Of Human Health -- ScienceDaily

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who says evolution has to be slow? Let's say that the environment that the species are within could very well go from A to B quite fast.

When asked why humans haven't evolved since man has been keeping records, the evolutionists always answer by saying "it happens over millions of years". You can't have it both ways.

Depends on the environment. Humans living within such a broad range of environments from cold of Europe to warm of Africa and eating so many kinds of food. Well, our evolution isn't forced.

Look at neatherals with their broad chest, short stance and high level of muscle. These creatures evolved to live within the cold of the ice ages. Modern humans on the other hand developed to run fast and be more linky in body shape.

Hybrids develops to become the white and Asian races...And the black race remained the pure warm "species" or limb of the tree that mastered the warm shape.

Look at humanoid evolution to see that we did in fact evolve. Millions of years? The humanoid broke off in at least half a dozen species during the past 2-3 million years. Only during the past 100 thousand years have we came to are form as we look today.

 

[S.J.]

Who says evolution has to be slow? Let's say that the environment that the species are within could very well go from A to B quite fast.

When asked why humans haven't evolved since man has been keeping records, the evolutionists always answer by saying "it happens over millions of years". You can't have it both ways.

Humans are still evolving. You didn't know this? Huh.

Evolving into what? You mean there's a new species? Show me a picture of one.

 

[orogenicman]

When asked why humans haven't evolved since man has been keeping records, the evolutionists always answer by saying "it happens over millions of years". You can't have it both ways.

Humans are still evolving. You didn't know this? Huh.

Evolving into what? You mean there's a new species? Show me a picture of one.

Try reading and commenting on my links:

Are humans still evolving? | I, Science

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

Are Humans Still Evolving? : Discovery News

Human Evolution: Are Humans Still Evolving? - TIME

Are Humans Still Evolving? Absolutely, Says A New Analysis Of A Long-term Survey Of Human Health -- ScienceDaily

 

[ScienceRocks]

For those who think the forces of natural selection no longer apply to modern humans, paleoanthropologist John Hawks would urge you to reconsider. In recent times — that's 10 to 20 thousand years, for a paleoanthropologist — Hawks says we've picked up genetic variations in skin color, and other traits that allow us to break down starch and digest cheese.

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

 

[S.J.]

For those who think the forces of natural selection no longer apply to modern humans, paleoanthropologist John Hawks would urge you to reconsider. In recent times — that's 10 to 20 thousand years, for a paleoanthropologist — Hawks says we've picked up genetic variations in skin color, and other traits that allow us to break down starch and digest cheese.

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

That's adaptation. When do we change into another species?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Ediacaran Period

Online exhibits : Geologic time machine : Proterozoic Eon
The Ediacaran Period

When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, he and most paleontologists believed that the oldest animal fossils were the trilobites and brachiopods of the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils. A few believed that the Cambrian fossils represented the moment of God's creation of animals, or the first deposits laid down by the biblical flood. Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."

Since Darwin's time, the fossil history of life on Earth has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria and algae. However, in the latest Proterozoic — a time period now called the Ediacaran, or the Vendian, and lasting from about 635 to 542 million years ago* — macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations.

1. I used to give you more credit for intelligence, Rocks....but if you are satisfied with this sort of analysis:

"Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils.".....

....they you are more suited to be in charge of valet parking at the hospital emergency room.

"...believed...' '....must have....' '....left no fossils...'





2. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302




3. " ...macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations."
False on the face of it.


4. Charles Doolittle Walcott was an American invertebrate paleontologist.[1] He became known for his discovery in 1909 of well-preserved fossils in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, Canada.
Charles Doolittle Walcott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Already director of the Smithsonian Institute, he is remembered today for the most dramatic discovery in the history of paleontology, a treasure of middle-Cambrian fossils, many previously unknown animal forms. The detail found was remarkable, proving a far greater diversity of biological form and architecture than had been previously imagined!



5. You quote 'fossils of soft bodied organism...."

Watch this:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


So.....you accept that 'soft bodied organisms' remain, but mineral exoskeletons do not????


Rocks....be serious.

Well, PC, obviously it is you that is not serious. The transition from single celled organisms would obviously involve soft bodied organisms initially. And, were you actually to do some research, the Edicarian fauna are being found all over the world now.

However, your blind loyalty to the massively disproven creationism has blinded you to reality. You do not want to see evidence, and will not see evidence for evolution, no matter what.

This is as slowly as I can say it: your argument, that soft bodied organisms remain in the fossil record....but organisms with hard exoskeletons didn't.....defies credibility.

As does Darwinian theory.



But even a dunce like you knows that.....don't you.



See if someone will lend you a quarter to buy a clue.

 

[orogenicman]

For those who think the forces of natural selection no longer apply to modern humans, paleoanthropologist John Hawks would urge you to reconsider. In recent times — that's 10 to 20 thousand years, for a paleoanthropologist — Hawks says we've picked up genetic variations in skin color, and other traits that allow us to break down starch and digest cheese.

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

That's adaptation. When do we change into another species?

Try learning about a word before you use it:

Defining adaptation

 

[rdean]

You know when Pat Robertson, they guy who thinks gays walk around with rings that give you AIDS, thinks the anti evolution and anti science crowd are "clowns", they you know they really are clowns.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. I used to give you more credit for intelligence, Rocks....but if you are satisfied with this sort of analysis:

"Many paleontologists believed that simpler forms of life must have existed before this but that they left no fossils.".....

....they you are more suited to be in charge of valet parking at the hospital emergency room.

"...believed...' '....must have....' '....left no fossils...'





2. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.302




3. " ...macroscopic fossils of soft-bodied organisms can be found in a few localities around the world, confirming Darwin's expectations."
False on the face of it.


4. Charles Doolittle Walcott was an American invertebrate paleontologist.[1] He became known for his discovery in 1909 of well-preserved fossils in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia, Canada.
Charles Doolittle Walcott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. Already director of the Smithsonian Institute, he is remembered today for the most dramatic discovery in the history of paleontology, a treasure of middle-Cambrian fossils, many previously unknown animal forms. The detail found was remarkable, proving a far greater diversity of biological form and architecture than had been previously imagined!



5. You quote 'fossils of soft bodied organism...."

Watch this:

"Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.


So.....you accept that 'soft bodied organisms' remain, but mineral exoskeletons do not????


Rocks....be serious.

Well, PC, obviously it is you that is not serious. The transition from single celled organisms would obviously involve soft bodied organisms initially. And, were you actually to do some research, the Edicarian fauna are being found all over the world now.

However, your blind loyalty to the massively disproven creationism has blinded you to reality. You do not want to see evidence, and will not see evidence for evolution, no matter what.

This is as slowly as I can say it: your argument, that soft bodied organisms remain in the fossil record....but organisms with hard exoskeletons didn't.....defies credibility.

As does Darwinian theory.



But even a dunce like you knows that.....don't you.



See if someone will lend you a quarter to buy a clue.

Sheesh. Really getting dense there, old gal. They didn't have exoskeletons. That was a later development. That is the fossil record. Go argue with that. For it proves you wrong on all counts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, PC, obviously it is you that is not serious. The transition from single celled organisms would obviously involve soft bodied organisms initially. And, were you actually to do some research, the Edicarian fauna are being found all over the world now.

However, your blind loyalty to the massively disproven creationism has blinded you to reality. You do not want to see evidence, and will not see evidence for evolution, no matter what.

This is as slowly as I can say it: your argument, that soft bodied organisms remain in the fossil record....but organisms with hard exoskeletons didn't.....defies credibility.

As does Darwinian theory.



But even a dunce like you knows that.....don't you.



See if someone will lend you a quarter to buy a clue.

Sheesh. Really getting dense there, old gal. They didn't have exoskeletons. That was a later development. That is the fossil record. Go argue with that. For it proves you wrong on all counts.

Interesting how folks, like you, are so fearful of the truth....somehow the embrace of Darwin is so important to you that you will convince yourself of things totally outside the realm of truth.

Interesting phenomenon.



Still....let's continue with destroying any claim you might have to knowledge of this issue.

1. Cambrian: "Some of these animals have mineralized exoskeletons, including those representing phyla, such as echinoderms, brachiopods, and arthropods, and each represent clearly distinct and novel body plans."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 34.

2. The puzzle is made more dense when it seems likely that at least some of the near ancestors of the many arthropod animals that arose in the Cambrian would have left as least some rudimentary remains of exoskeletons in the PreCambrian fossil record if such proof existed, and if arthropods arose in the gradual way Darwinian theory states.
So...what conclusion should a scientists draw....if the individual being relied on for said conclusion is....objective?






May I suggest the reason why Darwin's thesis is so very essential to folks of your persuasion?

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.” The Branding of a Heretic - WSJ.com





This is the reason why none of those who responded to this OP are able to answer the questions it poses....but become enraged that the questions are even posed, and find it necessary to attack me for posing same.

 

[orogenicman]

Speaking of the Cambrian, hey PC, did you ever find that Cambrian bunny rabbit?

 

[S.J.]

Modern Humans Still Evolving, and Faster Than Ever : NPR

That's adaptation. When do we change into another species?

Try learning about a word before you use it:

Defining adaptation

Try answering the question.

 

[orogenicman]

That's adaptation. When do we change into another species?

Try learning about a word before you use it:

Defining adaptation

Try answering the question.

Try learning about the word, and your will be able to answer the question yourself. Or is that too difficult for you?

 

[S.J.]

Try learning about a word before you use it:

Defining adaptation

Try answering the question.

Try learning about the word, and your will be able to answer the question yourself. Or is that too difficult for you?

In other words, you can't answer the question. When it comes right down to it, you can't answer ANY questions about the theory you espouse, can you?

 

[orogenicman]

Try answering the question.

Try learning about the word, and your will be able to answer the question yourself. Or is that too difficult for you?

In other words, you can't answer the question. When it comes right down to it, you can't answer ANY questions about the theory you espouse, can you?

Hey asshole. You pulled one link out of five that I posted and then declared "that's adaptation". You don't get to ask any questions if you can't demonstrate that you have any understanding of the material presented.

 

[Old Rocks]

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]