There is plenty of evidence AGAINST EVOLUTION:.......................?

Question

First, the 'Cambrian explosion'...... the millions of fossil types in Cambrian rock (oldest fossil bearing rocks) appear suddenly and fully formed and without any previous forms...IOW, there are no transitional forms.

Even Charles Darwin was honest when he confesses in 'Origin of Species'; " But as by THIS THEORY innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we NOT find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" -Charles Darwin

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagarms) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

The thing to remember is that evolution is still just a theory - a hypothesis, a speculation, an unproven assumption, and certainly is NOT supported by the fossil record.
According to Scripture NOTHING evolved but everything was created "AFTER THEIR KIND"....which is directly consistent with the fossil record.

Just thought you ought to know....since it is apparent that many who continually epoused the evolution theory are usually unaware of these scientific facts.

Not from a web site, secretsauce...look at my references.. Natural History Magazine is an evolutionary magazine...get an education please.

Papamoto...the fossil record hasn't changed in 30 years...apparently you don't even know who Stephen Gould is.... sadly, you proved my point .

Matt...apparently you like calling Stephen Gould a liar... you are a prime example of rejecting the evidence and inventing 'word salad' to try to keep your faith in a theory that is being rejected world wide for lack of evidence.

Louis G...you proved my point. Punctuated equilibrium is the 'new' attempt at evolution theory because of the realization that the old gradual change evolution DID NOT fit the scientific facts.....There are billlions of fossils and it is well known that NONE fit the gradual change theory...
However, most former evolutionists realize if you want to postulate the miracle of LARGE jumps in the changes to create species...then why not postulate the obvious, namely ONE large change ....Creation.?? That IS what the fossuil record showed...
Of course, it is consistent with the Bible....maybe THAT is why you want to reject the evidence...or can you be that honest?

Answer 1

take about big bang to create man kind will we should learn to make a real big bang see what evolves...anyone ever though how loud it was when God began to separate water and the soil???? rock....?

Answer 2

The earth has undergone many violent changes over the past 6 billion years. IT should not surprise anyone that there are no fossils during some periods of time. The formation of a fossil is actually a rare occurance and requires very unique and specific circumstances. The idea that because we can't find any fossils of a certain animal from a certain time must mean that it did not exist is foolish.You clearly found one piece of text that supported your own personal view. However if you yourself had looked further into the matter you would have seen that Mr. Gould was a proponent of evolutionary theory. He believed in a so called "punctuated equilibrium" where evolution occured in spurts with relative stable times in between. That is what he was referring to with the fossil record. There was no evidence of gradual consistant change, rather there were spurts. He was by no means a disbeliever in evolution.
In the link I posted below it states in black and white:
"Gould was a passionate advocate of evolutionary theory and wrote prolifically on the subject, trying to communicate his understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology to a wide audience"
You have misunderstood his ideas completely.

Your assertion that evolution is "just" a theory is wildly innacurate. It is accepted as fact in today's scientific community. The evidence for it is simply overwhelming and your ideas that species must have been created by god is no more valid than the idea that they must have been created by a flying purple monster.

Answer 3

This is simply nonsense. I am sure that your mind is as closed as a steel trap to anything which might affect your faith but to suggest there are no transitional forms really proves nothing but your utter ignorance facts. How many transitional forms do you need to see. I could list hundred but there is always transitional forms between the transitional forms. In other words, when a transitional form is found, i.e an archeopterix, your kind will ask to see the transitional form between that a recent bird etc.... As a geologist, I know how sparse and incomplete the fossil record is. You are not going to find every individual. You won't even find one in a billion. You wont find every year either. You talk about the Cambrian like it happened in a lifetime, it started 543 million years ago and lasted nearly 70 million years. Life did sprout relatively rapidly in a geological time scale but certainly not as you suggest. Life was in a transitional time and experimenting with many different niches and ways of filling those niches. You and your kind constantly quote Stephen Gould who is always taken out of context. Gould does not in any way support your point of view. In fact he opposed it vigorously.

Answer 4

1. Just because an explosion of fossils are present doesn't mean there was an explosion of species. The conditions have to be exactly right for fossils to form. Before this time, the conditions weren't perfect.

2. There are plenty of transitional fossils for many species, including humans.

3, 4, 5. See previous answers.

Evolution has been observed and recorded. Form what you have posted, you seem not to be the most educated on the subject.

Answer 5

There are perfectly logical scientific explainations for all your facts. The biggest being that fossils are rare. Not everything becomes a fossil. Living things before the Cambrian Era didn't have hard body parts to fossilize. An lastly this Steven Gould isn't in the main stream of biologists and has his own agenda!

Answer 6

There is no evidence against Evolution that is significant enough to cause biologists to question its fundamental correctness. It is by far the best explanation of how the different species of living things developed on Earth. If you are going to quote ancient religious documents as evidence, you should take your comments over to the Religion section and not waste the time of the biologists and other scientists in this area.

In science a "theory" is a hypothesis which has been extensively studied and which has a very large amount of observational evidence supporting it. So Evolution is a theory. Religious views of these topics are hypotheses - that is, they have no evidence at all for their validity. They are simply unsupported speculations, e.g. like Creationism and it's euphemistic alter ego, Intelligent Design.

There is ZERO chance that Evolution will be replaced by any religious based hypothesis in the world's science classes. .

Answer 7

Please google "quote mining."

Here is the full Darwin quote:

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides."
- Origin of Species, Chapter 6

In other words, Darwin is not "confessing" anything. He is asking a question and then answering it. But you dishonestly include only the question! You do this to imply that Darwin was baffled or "confessing" defeat by this question, when his immediate answer shows that precisely the opposite is true.

Darwin dedicates an entire chapter to this very question (which I will bet a lot of money you did NOT read), but he summarizes the answer: that there are reasons we would *expect* the fossil record to be incomplete ... and these have to do with known limitations in the way that fossils form, NOT limitations in the theory of evolution.

And your quotes by Stephen Jay Gould are similarly taken out of context. I would also bet a lot of money that you have never actually read any Stephen Jay Gould other than the snippets misquoted by Creationists. If you did then you would know that Gould (who was a renowned writer and professor at an unknown little place called Harvard University) didn't consider these things "evidence against evolution" at all.

And even if Darwin and Gould were "confessing" a hole in the evidence in SUPPORT of evolution (which they most certainly are NOT), this would still not be evidence AGAINST evolution. That is a BASIC error in logic on your part.

So I can't tell if you are being deliberately dishonest, or are just quoting from dishonest souces without knowing better.

Can you explain?

--------

And I do have an education. You evidently do not. (Not unless you include than the schooling you are getting here by a lot of people who are wiping the floor with you and you don't even know it.) I my university education, I have actually read seven (7) books by Stephen Jay Gould cover to cover. Have you read a single one? If you were even the slightest bit "honest" you would admit that you have never actually read Natural History magazine in your life! I know you haven't because if you had, you would not call it an "evolutionary magazine" ... it is a *general science* magazine that publishes articles in all branches of science. And if you actually had the full text of Gould's article in front of you, you would know that the snippet you quoted is incomplete, and is misrepresenting 180-degrees what Gould actually said, using the same tactic you used with the Darwin quote.

The quote you gave cuts Stephen Jay Gould off in mid sentence! Here's the complete sentence:

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it -- selection can operate rapidly."
- Natural History 86:22, 1977

So yes, you are clearly quoting from creationist web sites, not directly from Natural History magazine or the Origin of Species. And these web sites are quote mining from Gould and Darwin.

Quote mining is *despicable*.

Face it. You're busted.

Answer 8

evidence a million: they say prehistoric 1/2 dinosaur 1/2 chook creatures grew to develop into into chook. What about the failings contained in the middle? difficulty searching any? evidence 2: in accordance to evolution, human beings are meant to exhibit smarter over the years, suitable? u may say, properly we are able to apply computers yet historic ppl cant. yet thats only cuz we procedure more suitable understand-how, no longer intelligence. i could LIKE U to discover ME yet another: einstein, mozart, confucious, Li bai, jesus. modern-day medical doctors cant do something without technologies and anti biotics, look on the medical doctors without technologies. dont they heal sufferers an identical, or maybe more suitable positive? Who has more suitable intelligence? 3: evolution states the least confusing animal will develop into more suitable complicated. properly the position did the first least confusing animal come from then? a plant? no way! 4: Darwin grew to develop into christian at his deathbed. he stated he could have taken again his concept if it became accessible. 5: genuine tale: a christian believer dentist were given an immature tooth from a ill affected man or woman, buried it in soil for 30 days, submitted it to a paleontologist employer. They wrote again in some months affirming, " congrats, u stumbled on a homo habilis tooth that dates again million years in the past."

Answer 9

Gary, you are relatively an intelligent person and I will tell you that if you do your own research you will find that your facts are wrong. As an example from modern time (extant - creatures), I want you to show me a transitional form going from a two legged duck to a four legged duck, such as the the one in the news lately. There are none, It is a one generation mutation that if it survives and is able to procreate will start a population of four legged ducks. Do not let someone else do your thinking for you. Do your own research and do not argue based on belief alone. Question the things that you believe in the hardest. Look at Gould and actually listen to what he is saying and not take things out of context. I can do what you are doing with the bible and "Prove" that the bible tells you to hang yourself, and we both know that is ridiculous.

By the way the earliest fossils are discussed here and you will notice that all of them are very simplistic in form. Where are the more advanced forms and why did it take so long for complex forms to start showing up in the fossil record.

The oldest fossil evidence for life on Earth is found in 3.5 billion year old rocks in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Along with rocks of similar age in South Africa these are the oldest well preserved sedimentary rocks known. The evidence for fossil life takes the form of:
structures called stromatolites which are believed to be the fossilized remains of laminated structures built by colonies of micro-organisms. Modern examples of such colonies are found in Shark Bay in Western Australia
microfossils of individual micro-organisms.
carbon isotope ratios indicative of biological activity.
Some recent results include the discovery of 3.45 billion year old stromatolites by scientists of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, and the reporting of microfossils from a deep sea hot spring deposit of age 3.2 billion years by Birger Rasmussen of the University of Western Australia.

While controversy surrounds many of the reports of fossils of this age, it is generally accepted that there is sufficient evidence to be reasonably sure that life was well established on earth at about 3.5byr ago. Older rocks at 3.8byr age in Greenland are too greatly deformed to preserve fossils but have been claimed to show evidence for life in their carbon isotope ratios.

Answer 10

Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, so get that straight. Your lack of understanding of the nature of Science is only exceeded by your stubborn reliance on using the Bible as a source of science. The Bible does not speak of the existance of electrons, so they must not exist. Yet the internet is based upon scientific understanding of the nature of electricity controlled through electronics. Does your name have the letters PhD following it? How about MS, or even BS? What makes you so qualified to speak about science?

Answer 11

Hello again, Gary. I see you removed your question after I answered your last attempt at this. Let me summarize my last response. All life descended from a single common ancestor, with the general sequence as follows: Bacteria, amoeba, hydra, worm, hemichordate worm, eel, shark, bony fish, lungfish, amphibian, reptile, monotreme mammal, marsupial mammal, placental rodent, placental shrew, monkey, ape, australopithicine, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal (archaic homo sapiens), Cromagnon, modern man. Each stage of this sequence can be viewed as a transitional form compared to its immediate antecedent and its successor. And there is a multitude of fossil evidence to support this sequence.
I think you are a very intelligent person, but you have this emotional attachment to the supernatural, to the point that it causes you to believe in silly things like the Earth being only ~6,000 years old. You can believe in God and also believe in science. The two are not mutually exclusive, you know.