No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2015, 06:00 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
At work.

And I get a reply that is simply a 'Quote mine'. Sorry, no time to read a wall of text ( Not even the link3d abstract). Sad

Please, correct me if I am wrong. Though I'd bet that I am not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 05:44 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(04-09-2015 05:40 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

W.T.F. did I just see in the above post?

Picture painted over with photo-shop and no context.

Followed by something that's a misrepresentation (And has had all the corrections/links posted to before )............

Seriously GE, lift your game. Either engage in/with the questions posted to you or provide something new. (Preferably original).

Stop with this copy-paste crayon stuff.

no misrepresentation, but facts.

Does fossil record support the evolution model of gradual and small changes?

From a peer reviewed paper by Gene Hunt in 2007:

"Directional evolution is rarely observed within lineages traced through the fossil record. Only ≈5% of cases (13 of 251) are best fit by the directional evolution model (...)
Some previous paleontological studies have used a model of directional change in which evolutionary changes proceed at an absolutely constant rate in the same direction indefinitely (11). Although of heuristic value, most would agree that this model is not realistic over paleontological time scales. (...)
I have used these methods to analyze many fossil sequences, but even the most promising examples (e.g., refs. 21 and 22) do not support models of sustained directional change, although single interval punctuations are sometimes implied (unpublished data). Thus, even relaxing the assumption that evolutionary mode is uniform within lineages, we are still led to the conclusion that directional change is rarely observed over paleontologically significant time scales. (...)
Despite the commonness of stasis, there is little consensus about its cause or causes."

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18404.full

That quote does not support your assertions. You don't understand it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 06:55 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
"A record of pre-Cambrian animal life, it appears, simply does not exist. Why this lamentable blank? Various theories have been proposed; none is too satisfactory. It has been suggested, for example, that all the Pre-Cambrian sediments were deposited on continental areas, and the absence of fossils in them is due to the fact that all the older animals were seadwellers. But that all these older sediments were continental is a theory which opposes, without proof, everything we know of deposition in later times. Again, it is suggested that the Pre-Cambrian seas were poor in calcium carbonate, necessary for the production of preservable skeletons; but this is not supported by geochemical evidence. Yet again, it is argued that even though conditions were amenable to the formation of fossilizable skeletal parts, the various phyla only began to use these possibilities at the dawn of the Cambrian. But it is, a priori, hard to believe that the varied types present in the early Cambrian would all have, so to speak, decided to put on armour simultaneously. And, once again, it has been argued that the whole evolution of multicellular animals took place with great rapidity in late Pre-Cambrian times, so that a relatively short gap in rock deposition would account for the absence of any record of their rise. Perhaps; but the known evolutionary rate in most groups from the Cambrian on is a relatively leisurely one, and it is hard to convince oneself that a sudden major burst of evolutionary advance would be so promptly followed by a marked 'slowdown'. All in all, there is no satisfactory answer to the Pre-Cambrian riddle."

Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.



"From 1860 onward the more distant fossil record became a big issue, and over the next two decades discoveries were made that at first seemed to give support to the theory particularly the claimed discovery of a well-ordered sequence of fossil horse' dating back about 45 million years. Successes like this continue to be emphasized both to students and the public, but usually without the greater failures being mentioned. Horses according to the theory should be connected to other orders of mammals, which common mammalian stock should be connected to reptiles, and so on backward through the record. Horses should thus be connected to monkeys and apes, to whales and dolphins, rabbits, bears. ... But such connections have not been found. Each mammalian order can be traced backward for about 60 million years and then, with only one exception the orders vanish without connections to anything at all. The exception is an order of small insect-eating mammal that has been traced backward more than 65 million years..."

Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107.



"The only illustration Darwin published in On the Origin of Species was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin's theory of evolution, it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species into another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fossils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which, in turn, demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.



"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."

Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289.



"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families and that nearly all new categories above the level of families appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Major Features of Evolution," [1953], Columbia University Press: New York, 1955, Second Printing, p.360.



"If the creationists want to impress the Darwinian establishment, it will be no use prating on about what the fossils say. No good Darwinian's belief in evolution stands on the fossil evidence for gradual evolution, so nor will his belief fall by it."

Ridley, Mark [zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.



STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990



PRESTON CLOUD & MARTIN F. GLAESSNER, "Ever since Darwin, the geologically abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." SCIENCE, Aug.27, 1982



RICHARD MONASTERSKY, Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared....This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures....'This is Genesis material,' gushed one researcher....demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." Discover, p.40, 4/93



RICHARD DAWKINS, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists....the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p229-230



H.S. LADD, UCLA, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Precambrian record cannot properly he described as a link for it is in reality, about ninetenths of the chain of life: the first ninetenths.", Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.ll, p.7



PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard, "It is evidence that the oldest Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoa's, it contains no representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals had already taken place in those ancient times.", PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
*Yawn*

Tell us how you realy feel GE.

So..... any thoughts of your own? Or are you just going to keep 'Quote spamming' threads?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 07:15 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Yeah, this is officially past "presenting what he thinks is evidence" and into the realm of legitimate spam. He is nothing other than a bot now.

Count me among the number saying that a ban would be appropriate. Legitimate discourse is one thing. Spamming the same idiocy over and over while refusing to engage in actual discussion about it is another.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Romer Alfred S. [late Professor of Zoology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Procession of Life," The World Publishing Co: Cleveland OH, 1968, pp.19-20.
[/quote]

That reference is 47(!) years old

Quote:Hoyle, Sir Frederick [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.107.

That reference is 16 years old

Quote:Schwartz, Jeffrey H. [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, USA], "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," John Wiley & Sons: New York NY, 1999, p.3.

That reference is 16 years old

Quote:Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289.

That reference is 34 years old

Quote:Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University], "The Major Features of Evolution," [1953], Columbia University Press: New York, 1955, Second Printing, p.360.

That reference is 60(!) years old

Quote:Ridley, Mark [zoologist, Oxford University], "Who doubts evolution?" New Scientist, Vol. 90, pp.830-832, 25 June 1981, p.832.

That reference is 34 years old

Quote:STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990

That reference is 15 years old

Quote:PRESTON CLOUD & MARTIN F. GLAESSNER, SCIENCE, Aug.27, 1982

That reference is 33 years old

Quote:RICHARD MONASTERSKY, Earth Science Ed., Science News, Discover, p.40, 4/93

That reference is 22 years old

Quote:RICHARD DAWKINS, Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists....the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation...", THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, 1986, p229-230

You utterly dishonest asshole. That is deliberately taken out of context, just as Dawkins said it would.
You not only took it out of context, you altered it. Fuck you.

Quote:H.S. LADD, UCLA, Geo. So. of Am. Mem. 1967, Vol.ll, p.7

That reference is 38 years old

Quote:PERCY E. RAYMOND, Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard, PREHISTORIC LIFE, 1967 p.23

That reference is 38 years old


Average age of references: 31.8333 years. How many of them are quote mined?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
04-09-2015, 09:08 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Quote:You utterly dishonest asshole

Hobo

at least i am not what it produces..... Dodgy

transitional fossils

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...al-fossils

Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms, which is impossible.

Reji Mathew C Thomas  the very fossil evidnce that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature. The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearlyc ontinous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal liks. No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE. Questions are galore that the theory of evolution cannot answer or even explain with suiffcient evidence. 

http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the...al-fossils

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_form

Michael Denton stated:

“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today

anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:

“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 never see the very process we profess to study.

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/quotesfro...tists.html

The following quote is part of a personal letter from Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland:

       "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

       Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).


More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 09:24 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 09:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:You utterly dishonest asshole

Hobo

at least i am not what it produces..... Dodgy

transitional fossils

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...al-fossils

Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms, which is impossible.

Reji Mathew C Thomas  the very fossil evidnce that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature. The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearlyc ontinous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal liks. No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE. Questions are galore that the theory of evolution cannot answer or even explain with suiffcient evidence. 

"Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore
Former Postdoctoral Fellow at National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune India
Studied at Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore"

How is this guy credible in evolutionary science?

Quote:http://creation.com/that-quote-about-the...al-fossils

http://creationwiki.org/Transitional_form

Bullshit biased pseudoscience. Those sites are a joke.

Quote:Michael Denton stated:

“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today

Silly tautology. Of course the first thing that obviously looks like a bird looks like a bird.

Quote:anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:

“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so

There are thousands of times as many fossils today as in Darwin's time, and there are many transitional fossils. All of them, actually.

Quote:One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. 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 never see the very process we profess to study.

Yet again, a quote out of context. Aren't you ashamed of yourself? You should be.

Quote:In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/quotesfro...tists.html

Again, out of context. That is from his argument for "punctuated equilibrium".

Quote:The following quote is part of a personal letter from Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland:

       "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

       Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).

Citation for the letter required.

Quote:More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

1925? Get serious, you fool.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
04-09-2015, 11:14 PM
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
(04-09-2015 09:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.

I honestly don't know what's funnier: that you actually went and dug up a ninety-year-old quote by a physics professor as an example of scientists rejecting evolution, or that it's actually the strongest quote you found.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
05-09-2015, 12:33 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2015 07:18 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: No case of macro-evolution has ever been documented
Hey guys, I think you are being a bit too harsh on him for using quotes older than his grandparents.

I have an old-ass quote of my own, I mean, it's no 90-year old, but it's still pretty aged:

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - The title of an essay by Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), Professor of Zoology, Columbia University 1940-62, eminent geneticist and evolutionary biologist (and firm Russian Orthodox Christian), in which he argued for the accuracy of the title.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: