PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Wow....yesterday was quite a hit!
The OP pointed out that, while Darwin's theory was based on the idea that small, finite change nucleic acids accumulate, and result in a new species.....the known fact of the Cambrian Revolution is not supported with transitional fossils.
And the real explosion was the single-neuron crowd, that went ballistic at any questioning, or criticism of standard evolution theory.
So....here is some more on the same idea:
What's funny, in a pathetic kind of way, is how forcefully, and consistently, a certain segment of the science community beat the drum in favor of the theory of evolution.
One spokesperson, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), actually stated that there are 'no weaknesses in the theory.'
But Charles Darwin didn't feel that way.
1. Darwin saw the problem right from the start: the pattern in the fossil record, the hard evidence used to test the theory, that seemed to document the geologically sudden appearance of animal life without evidence of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the existence of the many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures.
Here's what he wrote:
a. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. Darwin actually sent an early copy of his manuscript to the best-trained scientist of the age, Louis Agassiz, at Harvard. He asked Agassiz's opinion....Agassiz knew the fossil record better than anyone. His conclusion was that the fossil record posed an insuperable difficulty for Darwin's theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 8.
3. You can see why for yourself. Brachiopods and trilobites: two of the most important, and best documented Cambrian creatures. Note how the first looks like a clam, or oyster. The second has three longitudinal lobes, a three part body, legs, - and compound eyes.
a. Brachiopods
b. Trilobites
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCONrU3nqgU]Trilobite fossil - Living fossils that deny evolution and prove creation 11 - YouTube[/ame]
4. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. ..There should have been myriad combinations of organisms in the fossil record. There aren't.
a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.
b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | | Richard C. Francis
5. But given huge stretches of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence?
Sure.
But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....
and b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death.
"It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out."
Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.
a. Darwin agreed as far as gradual change. Building a trilobite from a single-cell organism would require countless transitional forms, and numerous failed attempt over vast stretches of geologic time.
So.....where are they?
Hey....did someone simply insert trilobites....and brachiopods....fully formed...without any precursors...
If so, that wouldn't be Darwinian evolution.....would it?
Hmmmm........
The OP pointed out that, while Darwin's theory was based on the idea that small, finite change nucleic acids accumulate, and result in a new species.....the known fact of the Cambrian Revolution is not supported with transitional fossils.
And the real explosion was the single-neuron crowd, that went ballistic at any questioning, or criticism of standard evolution theory.
So....here is some more on the same idea:
What's funny, in a pathetic kind of way, is how forcefully, and consistently, a certain segment of the science community beat the drum in favor of the theory of evolution.
One spokesperson, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), actually stated that there are 'no weaknesses in the theory.'
But Charles Darwin didn't feel that way.
1. Darwin saw the problem right from the start: the pattern in the fossil record, the hard evidence used to test the theory, that seemed to document the geologically sudden appearance of animal life without evidence of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the existence of the many new and anatomically sophisticated creatures.
Here's what he wrote:
a. "The difficulty of understanding the absence of vast pile of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory were no doubt somewhere accumulated before the [Cambrian] epoch, is very great. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rock."
Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p. 306-307.
2. Darwin actually sent an early copy of his manuscript to the best-trained scientist of the age, Louis Agassiz, at Harvard. He asked Agassiz's opinion....Agassiz knew the fossil record better than anyone. His conclusion was that the fossil record posed an insuperable difficulty for Darwin's theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 8.
3. You can see why for yourself. Brachiopods and trilobites: two of the most important, and best documented Cambrian creatures. Note how the first looks like a clam, or oyster. The second has three longitudinal lobes, a three part body, legs, - and compound eyes.
a. Brachiopods
b. Trilobites
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCONrU3nqgU]Trilobite fossil - Living fossils that deny evolution and prove creation 11 - YouTube[/ame]
4. According to Darwin...there had to be random mutations, and a competition among the variations. ..There should have been myriad combinations of organisms in the fossil record. There aren't.
a."Darwin’s theory of the development of living systems is based on gradual accumulation of micromutations, i.e. mutations that lead to slight changes in the phenotype of organisms. Only long-term accumulation of these minor changes, as a consequence of the consistent action of natural selection, can lead to major evolutionary changes in the structure of organisms.."
Macromutations evolution | Frozen Evolution. Or, that?s not the way it is, Mr. Darwin. A Farewell to Selfish Gene.
b. "By macro-mutation I mean a considerable hunk of DNA that contains more than one gene....All macro-mutations have drastic effects on development, most are lethal. " Genetic Dark Matter? Part 2 | | Richard C. Francis
5. But given huge stretches of time....couldn't the new organisms have come into existence?
Sure.
But Agassiz explained in an Atlantic Monthly article, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type,"
a) small scale variation never produced a difference in specie....
and b) large scale variation, produced either gradually or suddenly, inevitably resulted in sterility or death.
"It is a matter of fact that extreme variations finally degenerate or become sterile; like monstrosities they die out."
Agassiz, "Evolution and the Permanence of Type," p. 99.
a. Darwin agreed as far as gradual change. Building a trilobite from a single-cell organism would require countless transitional forms, and numerous failed attempt over vast stretches of geologic time.
So.....where are they?
Hey....did someone simply insert trilobites....and brachiopods....fully formed...without any precursors...
If so, that wouldn't be Darwinian evolution.....would it?
Hmmmm........
Last edited by a moderator:
