The poor, poor Darwinists......time and evidence are working against them.....Darwin's theory has been disproven, even taking his own words into account.
1. "THE ABRUPT manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologistsfor instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwickas 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
a. So Charles Darwin named the Litmus Test for his theory: see if new species arise gradually, or spontaneously. If the former, he's a winner....but if the latter....well...
2. The discovery of the Burgess Shale deposits pretty much nailed it. The significance of
the Burgess Shale discoveries is that the many new body plans show disparity, major differences that separate phyla, classes and orders ....and careful study of earlier fossils did not reveal any evolutionary trail!
3. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould studied the Burgess Shale. " Stephen Jay Gould's book "Wonderful Life," published in 1989, brought the Burgess Shale fossils to the public's attention. Gould suggests that the extraordinary diversity of the fossils indicate that life forms at the time were
much more disparate in body form than those that survive today, and that many of the unique lineages were evolutionary experiments that became extinct."
Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a. Gould felt the necessity to rescue evolution, and Darwin, if he could. So...
he declared that the sudden appearance of new, fully-formed species was perfectly compatible with Darwin's theory. Of course, this is nonsense: it is the exact opposite.
b. Steven J. Gould reported:
"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; i
t appears all at once and fully formed."
Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
4. But...it gets worse.
Chinese paleontologist J.Y. Chen excavated a new discovery of Cambrian fossils in southern China, he brought to light an even greater variety of body plans from an even older layer of Cambrian rock than those of Burgess! And the Chinese fossils established that the Cambrian animals appeared even more explosively than previously imagined!!!
" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but theres another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors."
Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (
http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)
Poor, poor Darwin.
5. Even from Time magazine:
"Over the decades, evolutionary theorists beginning with Charles Darwin have tried to argue that the appearance of multicelled animals during the Cambrian merely seemed sudden, and in fact had been preceded by a lengthy period of evolution for which the geological record was missing.
But this explanation, while it patched over a hole in an otherwise masterly theory, now seems increasingly unsatisfactory. Since 1987, discoveries of major fossil beds in Greenland,
in China, in Siberia, and now in Namibia have shown that
the period of biological innovation occurred at virtually the same instant in geologic time all around the world."
Extrait de:
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
6. And yet the Darwinian fanatics make it a personal crusade to pillory any who explain that
Darwin's theory just doesn't make it, and is annihilated by the facts, the facts that Darwin himself explained would be fatal to his theory.
7. "Various studies conclude that a well-sized slice of the American public doubts evolution. If that is true, I dont find it too surprising coming from an American society that descends from revolutionaries who were
skeptical of establishments. We could easily
be wary of scientific or academic as well as political and religious establishments, if any start looking authoritarian enough.
But for some, the Darwinist establishment is very desirable and
questioning it is virtually a crime.
When
Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chens criticism of Darwinian predictions about the fossil record was met with dead silence from a group of scientists in the U.S., he quipped that,
In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government;
in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin.
Darwinocracy: The evolution question in American politics | Washington Times Communities
Time to throw in the towel, Darwinists.
