Evolutionists , can you explain these things, part 4..........?

Question

In concusion:
In reality, the fossil record seems to fit the creation model well--the record is in fact characterized by abrupt appearances of fully formed organisms, with large systematic gaps(lacking transitional forms) between different types of creatures. Geologist David Raup, curator at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, explains, "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwins time, and geologists of the present day, actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record , then abruptly go out of the record. Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould further acknowledged, " New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region, the EXTREME RARITY of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.

Answer 1

See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Answer 2

Most dead creatures won't get fossilized. There needs to be some kind of cataclysm to produce the geological conditions required, and fortunately such events don't happen very often (although in Earth's history there have been thousands). This creates gaps in the fossil record.

However, ALL fossils are transitional fossils: and such a preserved sequence of evolution is evident in, say, the development of the horse, once a fairly small creature (Eohippus) whose four toes, one on each foot, had blunt and heavy nails resembling hooves. The cataclysm after that preserved the bones of Merychippus, the size of a small pony which had one hoof on each foot like the modern Equus but also two smaller, vestigial hooves one on each side of the foot that did not touch the ground and served no purpose.

Answer 3

Interesting "quote", I couldn't find it, but did find this quote from him: "Over the years, I have worked with a bunch of different topics including biocrystallogaphy of echinoderm skeletons, mathematical models of morphology, microevolution in the ammonite Kosmoceras, and a variety of simulation models of macroevolution. Unlike most paleontologists, I have not concentrated on a single taxon and stratigraphic interval." Which would indicate that he still supports macro evolution.

Your assertion that the fossil record supports Creation well is a stretch, especially when you take the whole creation story into account especially the sequence and appearance of light and the sun and of course those pesky little things that cause disease, sickness and decay.

Answer 4

1. Viruses don't change themselves into other forms. They evolve. (their offspring is more fit than their ancestors). Organisms don't change depending on their surroundings (not their genes, anyway). SPECIES change, depending on their surroundings. Mendel wasn't the father of modern genetics, he was the father of genetics (A//a, A//A, a//a). Watson and Crick were the fathers of modern genetics (DNA, RNA, mutations). Who cares about Darwin? Watson and Crick proved both Mendel and Darwin were right (mostly). Modern genetics explained the evidence further, and provided more. Whatever Mendel and Darwin might have said, it doesn't matter: evolution is true, based on the evidence we have today. Actually, 1-5 all happen randomly without purpose, signals, goal or method. They're random. We DO know how genes work. YOU don't. Duplication of gene -> more DNA, same amount of information. Point mutation -> same amount of DNA, different information Therefore, duplication + point mutation -> more DNA, of which one of the two copies has different information. So that's an increase of information. In for a penny, in for a pound. If you allow for gene duplication and point mutation, the information in the gene can increase. But it doesn't have to be point mutations: whole sections of coding genes can just vanish, or just be added somewhere. Imagine half a gene is copied in the midsts of another gene - then the new gene will produce a completely new protein. New information, new function, new genes.

Answer 5

When the environment isn't changing much, then a species can have stable visible characteristics for a long period of time. Evolution tends to occur in small, isolated populations, or during periods of climatic change. Google around for "punctuated equilibrium."

When I think about this, I imagine the Cane Toad in Australia. A few "founders" found their way to Australia where they were not native. The conditions for them are favorable but not optimal. Those best suited to surviving in the new land are going to be the ones to reproduce -- and you get a population that's not identical to the Cane Toads found elsewhere. Over a longer period of time, the Australian toads may have changed so much they can no longer breed with their parent population. That's a speciation event.

Answer 6

Finally.

It would be nice to have a fossil record of every single evolutionary change in one animal. Considering the nature of fossils, how they develop and long it takes for them to form, that is impossible.

I'm not sure if that answers your question since I'm not even sure what your question is.

I would like to advise you to look up laws on copywrite infringement. Might come in handy.

Answer 7

1- They aren't rare. Just saying they are doesn't make it true.
2- When you can explain how creationism explains fossil succession you have a point (I posted this about three questions ago--I still haven't head from you)
3- The existence of ONE would be more evidence for our side than you have.

Answer 8

You are kidding right? You are not really using a Field Museum of Natural history curator to prove creationism are you?

Answer 9

Providing quotes out of context in order to prove your point is intellectually lazy. It's obvious that you are copying the information from a creationist website because it is consistent with the way creationists have misrepresented Gould's ideas and writings.

Answer 10

This is actually quite unremarkable, and Raup was not endorsing creationism, but making the case for something called "punctuated equilibrium."

"Puncuated equilibrium" is actual science, an evolutionary theory, and is unrelated to unscientific southern baptist creationism.