Science Believers

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Watch how easily I eviscerate you,

Sorry dummy...copy pasta nonsense you never read and don't understand isn't more compelling than all the evidence. That's why freaks like you are relegated to blogs and anonymous message boards.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread

Right, to mock it. Just as any rational, educated person would do with it.

 

[Hollie]

your Dinaro where you put your dinner: see if you can find any errors in any of my post

Evolution is a fact. Any post to the contrary is an error. Take your silly nonsense to the conspiracy section, where it belongs.

"Evolution is a fact. Any post to the contrary is an error."


Watch how easily I eviscerate you, you dunce:


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

"There are no laboratory demonstrations of speciation, millions of fruit flies coming and going while never once suggesting that they were destined to appear as anything other than fruit flies.
More than six thousand years of breeding and artificial selection, barnyard and backyard, have never induced a chicken to lay a square egg or persuade a pig to develop wheels or ball bearings."
Berlinski




That was pretty simple......not as simple as you are, but pretty simple.

Pretty simple for simpletons. Creationist loons such as Kenyon did nothing to advance the goals of religious extremism.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Dean H. Kenyon is professor emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, and one of the grand old men of the modern form of creationism known as Intelligent Design. Kenyon is, for instance, the author of the infamous Of Pandas and People (with Percival Davis), the textbook that laid the foundation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (after being quickly turned from a creationist book into an Intelligent Design book, which was possible since the views are the same). And yes, there is a pattern here – Kenyon, as most proponents of ID, are concerned with getting creationism into schools, writing textbooks, popular books (especially for children), and participating in debates. The ID movement isn’t, and has never been, about doing science. It should be mentioned that Kenyon still subscribes to young earth creationism.

Kenyon first started promoting creationism (the young earth variant) in the 1980s, calling it “scientific creationism” and trying to teach it in his classes at San Francisco State. That didn’t go down particularly well with his more scientifically minded colleagues. The fact that they determined that creationism couldn’t be taught as science didn’t exactly change Kenyon’s mind, so he continued teaching it in other courses, leading to some major controversies at the university (where Kenyon claimed that “objections to his teaching rested on a positivist view of what constitutes legitimate science,” which is just a weasel phrase for “I should be allowed to teach my intuitions and convictions as being scientific regardless of whether they are backed up by evidence”). In the 1980s he became infamous for his involvement in the standard-setting McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard courtcases. In fact, Kenyon pulled out right before he was expected to testify in the first case. In the latter, Kenyon supplied an affidavit which ended up constituting the main part of the defense.

In the 1990s Kenyon became affiliated with the Discovery Institute. He is currently board member for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic YEC group.

 

[PoliticalChic]

your Dinaro where you put your dinner: see if you can find any errors in any of my post

Evolution is a fact. Any post to the contrary is an error. Take your silly nonsense to the conspiracy section, where it belongs.

“Evolution is a fact.”

Science Believers



If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.


...why is it that in the century and a half, with more scientists at work than in all of history combined, no one has been able to point to any one species becoming an altogether different specie....in nature or in the laboratory?



I'm sure you'd like to admit you lied.....or, as the Democrats say, 'misspoke.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread

Right, to mock it. Just as any rational, educated person would do with it.

Is there some reason you cannot find a single error in any of my posts.....

....aside from the obvious conclusion that I'm never wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

 

[Hollie]

your Dinaro where you put your dinner: see if you can find any errors in any of my post

Evolution is a fact. Any post to the contrary is an error. Take your silly nonsense to the conspiracy section, where it belongs.

“Evolution is a fact.”

Science Believers



If it is a 'fact'....

Fact: known and proven true.


...why is it that in the century and a half, with more scientists at work than in all of history combined, no one has been able to point to any one species becoming an altogether different specie....in nature or in the laboratory?



I'm sure you'd like to admit you lied.....or, as the Democrats say, 'misspoke.'

You lack a science vocabulary, (common for religious extremists / Harun Yahya groupies), so some accommodation is required for people like you. Speciation is the term you are befuddled about. There are many documented instances of speciation.

Before copying and pasting slogans you read at Harun Yahya, you should take the time to learn something about the subject you rail against. That would allow you to look a bit less buffoonish.

 

[Hollie]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

Your dishonest “quote mining” is pretty typical for Harun Yahya groupies.

Not surprisingly, your Eldridge “quote” is one I have exposed as a fraud on multiple occasions. Yet, here you are, perpetuating that fraud again.

As you know from my repeated exposure of your fraud and dishonesty, Niles Eldridge is a favorite of the Harun Yahya groupies who ruthlessly edit, parse and simply re-write his work to press their agenda.

Here’s the fuller context:

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

Quote #3.13
[If evolution is true, species should gradually appear in the fossil record with millions of transitional forms]

No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change -- over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution. - Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 95

Representative quote miners: Understand The Times: Evolutionary Leap Frog, Coalition of Christians for Biblical Creation: Two Models of Origins, and Genesis Park: Abrupt Appearance in the Fossil Record

This quote mine was made popular in creationist circles, I suspect, by Phillip Johnson in his Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997, at pp. 60-61). A related bit of quote mining by Johnson has already been addressed in"Another Dishonest Creationist Quote".

In a section of Chapter 4 of Defeating Darwinism with the subcaption "Critical Thinking in Evolutionary Biology", Johnson introduces the quote with the following:

I am not as impressed by such examples ["the venerable bird/reptile Archaeopteryx, the "whale with feet" calledAmbulocetus, the therapsids that supposedly link reptiles to mammals, and especially the hominids or apemen, like the famous Lucy"] as Darwinists think I should be, because I know that the fossil record overall is extremely disappointing to Darwinian expectations. ... What is even more interesting is that the evidence for Darwinian macroevolutionary transformations is most conspicuously absent just where the fossil evidence is most plentiful -- among marine invertebrates. (These animals are plentiful as fossils because they are so frequently covered in sediment upon death, whereas land animals are exposed to scavengers and to the elements.) If the theory were true, and if the correct explanation for the difficulty in finding ancestors were the incompleteness of the fossil record, then the evidence for macroevolutionary transitions would be most plentiful where the record is most complete.
Here is how Niles Eldredge, one of the world's leading experts on invertebrate fossils, describes the actual situation . . . (p. 60)

By now it hardly needs to be said that Eldredge was discussing Punctuated Equilibria in the quote. The quote appears in a chapter entitled "Evolution in Real Time", subheaded "Punctuated Equilibria and the Eternal Species Wrangle", that begins:

No idea has excited more interest, sparked more debate, been more widely cited, and been more profoundly misunderstood in the post-1959 annals of evolutionary biology than the notion of "punctuated equilibria" that I published with Stephen Jay Gould in 1972.

 

[Hollie]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

When the Harun Yahya groupies edit “quotes” with multiple ellipses, you just know they have edited, parsed original works to suit their agenda.


Quote #14

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

Snipped in the ellipsis is:

"We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

Following this passage is:

"Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. .... The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from a persisting parental stock.
"Darwin, to be sure, acknowledged and discussed the process of speciation. But he cast his discussion of evolutionary change almost totally in the mold of phyletic transformation. In this context, the phenomenon of stasis and sudden appearance could hardly be attributed to anything but imperfection of the record; for if new species arise by transformation of entire ancestral populations, and if we almost never see the transformation (because species are essentially static through their range), then our record must be hopelessly incomplete.
"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.

 

[Hollie]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Here we another edited and parsed “quote” used typically by the Harun Yahya groupies.


Quote #3.5

Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes

[There are no fossils showing transitions between species]

In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.... Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment - Jerry Adler - Newsweek (1980, 96[18]:95).

Representative quote miners: Evolution Cruncher: No Transitions -- Only Gaps and Reason & Revelation: 15 Answers to John Rennie andScientific American’s Nonsense

For the complete article, see talk.origins post [email protected].

The only "surprise" here is that creationists have so little shame.

Once again, this is an article about the (then relatively new) proposal by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge of Punctuated Equilibria. It was apparently so new to these magazine writers that they (perhaps abetted by some of Gould's and Eldredge's scientific opponents) confused it with Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters" ideas, even though they note:

The paleontologists who have been in the forefront of the new theory don't necessarily believe in hopeful monsters. When they say that new species evolved rapidly, they are speaking in geologic terms. A single generation or 50,000 years is all the same to them. Either would be too short an interval for the intermediate organisms to appear in the fossil record.

In short, the article is nothing more than a report on the early arguments about Punctuated Equilibria. And the quote mine is just a snippet of the magazine writers' (not very clear) description of Gould and Eldredge's position, not a quote from any scientist.

In any case, the quote miners strangely fail to include the following:

While the scientists have been refining the theory of evolution in the past decade, some nonscientists have been spreading anew the gospel of creationism -- and the coincidence has confused many laymen . . . Having opposed Darwin for 120 years, fundamentalists tend to seize on any criticism of his theories as vindication . . . But the new theories are intended to explain how evolution came about -- not to supplant it as a principle. Says Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, . . . "Evolution is a fact, like apples falling out of trees."

The irony of the miner's use of this article in the face of the above is obvious and demonstrates more about the miners' honesty than it does anything about evolution.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Considering Explanations For Missing Links "

* Fully Formed Creation Versus Genetic Engineering By Extraterrestrial Manipulation *

"Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers
If it is a 'fact'....
Fact: known and proven true.
...why is it that in the century and a half, with more scientists at work than in all of history combined, no one has been able to point to any one species becoming an altogether different specie....in nature or in the laboratory?
I'm sure you'd like to admit you lied.....or, as the Democrats say, 'misspoke.'

While evolution to our current state without interference from extraterrestrials would be a fantastic thing to have occurred , when considering a contrast between instantaneous creation in full form by a proposed deity versus intervention by extraterrestrials , the latter seems far more plausible .

Clearly , even if the solar system were aligned and the planet seeded by extraterrestrials , few would equate such beings with the founders of existence itself , though they would then be understood as " creators of hue mammon " , conceivably , " in their own image " .

Genetic recombination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genetic recombination (also known as genetic reshuffling) is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms which leads to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In eukaryotes, genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring. Most recombination is naturally occurring.

Recombination can be artificially induced in laboratory (in vitro) settings, producing recombinant DNA for purposes including vaccine development.

Recombinant DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recombinant DNA is the general name for a piece of DNA that has been created by combining at least two strands. Recombinant DNA is possible because DNA molecules from all organisms share the same chemical structure, and differ only in the nucleotide sequence within that identical overall structure. Recombinant DNA molecules are sometimes called chimeric DNA, because they can be made of material from two different species, like the mythical chimera. R-DNA technology uses palindromic sequences and leads to the production of sticky and blunt ends.

The DNA sequences used in the construction of recombinant DNA molecules can originate from any species. For example, plant DNA may be joined to bacterial DNA, or human DNA may be joined with fungal DNA. In addition, DNA sequences that do not occur anywhere in nature may be created by the chemical synthesis of DNA, and incorporated into recombinant molecules. Using recombinant DNA technology and synthetic DNA, literally any DNA sequence may be created and introduced into any of a very wide range of living organisms.

Recombinant DNA differs from genetic recombination in that the former results from artificial methods in the test tube, while the latter is a normal biological process that results in the remixing of existing DNA sequences in essentially all organisms.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Considering Explanations For Missing Links "

* Fully Formed Creation Versus Genetic Engineering By Extraterrestrial Manipulation *

"Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers
If it is a 'fact'....
Fact: known and proven true.
...why is it that in the century and a half, with more scientists at work than in all of history combined, no one has been able to point to any one species becoming an altogether different specie....in nature or in the laboratory?
I'm sure you'd like to admit you lied.....or, as the Democrats say, 'misspoke.'

While evolution to our current state without interference from extraterrestrials would be a fantastic thing to have occurred , when considering a contrast between instantaneous creation in full form by a proposed deity versus intervention by extraterrestrials , the latter seems far more plausible .

Clearly , even if the solar system were aligned and the planet seeded by extraterrestrials , few would equate such beings with the founders of existence itself , though they would be understood as " creators " .

Genetic recombination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genetic recombination (also known as genetic reshuffling) is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms which leads to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In eukaryotes, genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring. Most recombination is naturally occurring.

Recombination can be artificially induced in laboratory (in vitro) settings, producing recombinant DNA for purposes including vaccine development.

Recombinant DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recombinant DNA is the general name for a piece of DNA that has been created by combining at least two strands. Recombinant DNA is possible because DNA molecules from all organisms share the same chemical structure, and differ only in the nucleotide sequence within that identical overall structure. Recombinant DNA molecules are sometimes called chimeric DNA, because they can be made of material from two different species, like the mythical chimera. R-DNA technology uses palindromic sequences and leads to the production of sticky and blunt ends.

The DNA sequences used in the construction of recombinant DNA molecules can originate from any species. For example, plant DNA may be joined to bacterial DNA, or human DNA may be joined with fungal DNA. In addition, DNA sequences that do not occur anywhere in nature may be created by the chemical synthesis of DNA, and incorporated into recombinant molecules. Using recombinant DNA technology and synthetic DNA, literally any DNA sequence may be created and introduced into any of a very wide range of living organisms.

Recombinant DNA differs from genetic recombination in that the former results from artificial methods in the test tube, while the latter is a normal biological process that results in the remixing of existing DNA sequences in essentially all organisms.

It appears you are the first one to bring in extraterrestrials.

The thread simply concludes that there is no proof of Darwin's theory, yet it is presented to the uninformed as "fact."

 

[alang1216]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

Interestingly your first quotes are from people debating how evolution works and what evidence there is for it but they are all firm believers that it happened. Like the vast majority of scientists, the fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor is accepted as fact.

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You voluntarily subscribed to this thread, clearly because the truth I post put a burr under your saddle, you donkey.

You put a burr under my saddle but it was not your truth but your cherry-picking of quotes, ideological spin, and misrepresentations that did it.

For example, you love to quote Darwin and the fossil record but paleontology was a very new science 150+ years ago and the first dinosaur fossil was found when Darwin was a young man.

Do you know what 'paleontology' is?


It appears you don't.


I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

Interestingly your first quotes are from people debating how evolution works and what evidence there is for it but they are all firm believers that it happened. Like the vast majority of scientists, the fact that all life evolved from a common ancestor is accepted as fact.

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

 

[alang1216]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

 

[Hollie]

" Considering Explanations For Missing Links "

* Fully Formed Creation Versus Genetic Engineering By Extraterrestrial Manipulation *

"Evolution is a fact.”
Science Believers
If it is a 'fact'....
Fact: known and proven true.
...why is it that in the century and a half, with more scientists at work than in all of history combined, no one has been able to point to any one species becoming an altogether different specie....in nature or in the laboratory?
I'm sure you'd like to admit you lied.....or, as the Democrats say, 'misspoke.'

While evolution to our current state without interference from extraterrestrials would be a fantastic thing to have occurred , when considering a contrast between instantaneous creation in full form by a proposed deity versus intervention by extraterrestrials , the latter seems far more plausible .

Clearly , even if the solar system were aligned and the planet seeded by extraterrestrials , few would equate such beings with the founders of existence itself , though they would be understood as " creators " .

Genetic recombination - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Genetic recombination (also known as genetic reshuffling) is the exchange of genetic material between different organisms which leads to production of offspring with combinations of traits that differ from those found in either parent. In eukaryotes, genetic recombination during meiosis can lead to a novel set of genetic information that can be passed on from the parents to the offspring. Most recombination is naturally occurring.

Recombination can be artificially induced in laboratory (in vitro) settings, producing recombinant DNA for purposes including vaccine development.

Recombinant DNA - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Recombinant DNA is the general name for a piece of DNA that has been created by combining at least two strands. Recombinant DNA is possible because DNA molecules from all organisms share the same chemical structure, and differ only in the nucleotide sequence within that identical overall structure. Recombinant DNA molecules are sometimes called chimeric DNA, because they can be made of material from two different species, like the mythical chimera. R-DNA technology uses palindromic sequences and leads to the production of sticky and blunt ends.

The DNA sequences used in the construction of recombinant DNA molecules can originate from any species. For example, plant DNA may be joined to bacterial DNA, or human DNA may be joined with fungal DNA. In addition, DNA sequences that do not occur anywhere in nature may be created by the chemical synthesis of DNA, and incorporated into recombinant molecules. Using recombinant DNA technology and synthetic DNA, literally any DNA sequence may be created and introduced into any of a very wide range of living organisms.

Recombinant DNA differs from genetic recombination in that the former results from artificial methods in the test tube, while the latter is a normal biological process that results in the remixing of existing DNA sequences in essentially all organisms.

It appears you are the first one to bring in extraterrestrials.

The thread simply concludes that there is no proof of Darwin's theory, yet it is presented to the uninformed as "fact."

Actually, the thread concludes that you Harun Yahya groupies have an anti-science agenda to press. To suggest there is no proof of Darwinian evolution is profoundly ignorant.

You Flat Earth Society loons are a strange lot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

 

[Hollie]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

You’re spamming the thread with the same discredited cutting and pasting you dumped earlier.

You’re getting rather frantic. Do you understand that relying on a 1980’s vintage Newsweek article is pretty desperate?

 

[Hollie]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

I thought it was comical that you got everything wrong in your frantic cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya.

Your reference to Henry Gee as editor of the journal Nature is false.

Nature announces new editor-in-chief

Geneticist Magdalena Skipper is first woman to head the 149-year-old journal.

www.nature.com

You realize you’re a complete hack, right?

 

[alang1216]

Re: I can cite the fossil record to prove that it doesn't prove evolution theory.....you can't do the same to prove it does.

You are correct that the fossil record doesn't prove evolution theory, what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence.

"...what you're missing is that it is that it is overwhelming EVIDENCE for evolution. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining this evidence. "


There is no such evidence.

Stop lying.

EVERY one of the trillions of fossils found fit neatly into the theory of descent from a common ancestor. Can you cite any that don't?

There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, "In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life"

Dr Henry Gee (born 1962 in London, England) is a British paleontologist and evolutionary biologist. He is a senior editor of "Nature," the scientific journal.
Henry Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The import of the above is that, although Charles Darwin anticipated proof of his theory on the fossil record....well, it simply isn't to be found there.


“No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Eldredge, N. (1995) Reinventing Darwin, Wiley, New York, p. 95.



Watch this:

a. . The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”
"The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182

b. "Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I [sic] usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

c. There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

d. ". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.



e. In “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution,” 2007, Koonin writes “Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity….do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.” So….Darwin was wrong?” In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.” The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Did you get that? ‘Intermediate forms’ are …..imaginary.

f. In fact, the fossil record does not demonstrate a sequence of transitional fossils for any species. As Newsweek reporter Jerry Adler accurately noted:

"In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated....

Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school: that new species evolve out of existing ones by the gradual accumulation of small changes, each of which helps the organism survive and compete in the environment." (Newsweek, 1980, 96[18]:95).


g. Alan H. Linton, Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology
University of Bristol (UK), said in a 2001 article,

"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another "¦ Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution "¦ throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." Alan H. Linton

h. "It is totally wrong. It's wrong like infectious medicine was wrong before Pasteur. It's wrong like phrenology is wrong. Every major tenet of it is wrong," said the outspoken biologist Lynn Margulis about her latest target: the dogma of Darwinian evolution. [With her theses], Margulis was . . . denouncing the modern framework of the century-old theory of Darwinism, which holds that new species build up from an unbroken line of gradual, independent, random variations. Margulis is not alone in challenging the stronghold of Darwinian theory, but few have been so blunt. As cited in Kevin Kelly's book, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems and the Economic World12 Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, London: Fourth Estate, 1995, pp. 470-471

Re; There is no proof of Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

There is nothing to disprove Darwin in the fossil record, to this day.

I realize English may not be your first language so here is a refresher you may have missed in your ivy days:

Proof: establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

Evidence Versus Proof