What has confounded scientist is the FACT that the massive fossil record revels NO TRANSISTIONAL LINKS between one MAJOR kind of living thing and another. So what the fossil record says is just the OPPOSITE of what was expected.....Botanist Heribert Nilsson says "The LACK of transistional series CANNOT be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real they will NEVER be filled"....Zoologist Harold Coffin adds "If progressive EVOLUTION from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of full-blown living creatures in the Cambrin should be found-but they have NOT BEEN FOUND and scientist admit there is little prospect of their EVER BEING FOUND".. Evolutionist Edward Samuel says"No biogeographical distribution or of the fossil record can direct support evolution".....Dr Carl Sagan says - The fossil record evidence could be CONSISTENT with the IDEA of a GREAT DESIGNER.......(Now I ask all of you WHICH REQUIRE MORE FAITH....EVOLUTION OR CREATION ??
2007-12-21 05:02:03 · 19 answers · asked by Archie P 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
There are some real problems like the Cambrian explosion (where we have the sudden appearance of all these diverse and fully formed animals in the fossil record, with no evolutionary ancestors).
And as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, “While Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even a century and a half later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.”
In the fossil record, we find abrupt appearance and stasis with the organisms found there, and that is why Gould and Eldrege came up with the Punctuated equilibrium theory—they claimed it could be explained by the transitions occurring quickly.
Dr. Don Batten commented, “Recognizing the non-gradualist nature of the fossil record, in 1972 Gould and Eldredge published a radical new theory of evolution that supposedly fitted the observations of the fossil record. They described the fossil record as representing long periods of equilibrium or stasis (things staying much the same), which are punctuated by the relatively sudden appearance of new forms. Hence they dubbed their new theory ‘punctuated equilibrium’. Fossils showing transitions from one form to another are missing, and to establish the need for the new theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge argued very forcibly against supposed examples of gradual change in the fossils.”
Biologist Dr. Gary Parker said, “Believe it or not, when it comes to fossils, evolutionists and creationists now agree on what the facts are. The overwhelming pattern that emerges from fossils we have found is summarized in the word stasis. Stasis and static come from the same root word, a word that means ‘stay the same.’ Gould and Eldredge are simply saying that most kinds of fossilized life forms appear in the fossil sequence abruptly and distinctly as discrete kinds, then show relatively minor variation within kind, and finally abruptly disappear . . . The most direct and logical inference (to a heart and mind open to the possibility) appears to be, it seems to me, creation, and variation within the basic created kinds. Differences such as extinction and decline in size and variety seem to point to the corruption [the fall] and catastrophe [the flood] in the created order, not at all to ‘upward, onward’ evolution.”
2007-12-21 11:03:13 · answer #1 · answered by Questioner 7 · 1⤊ 10⤋
> NO TRANSISTIONAL LINKS
Blah blah blah. Have a look at feathered dinosaurs and archaeopteryx.
> Botanist Heribert Nilsson
Even scientists can be Just Plain Wrong.
> ancestors of full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian
Yup, what happened 500 million years ago is a poser. My thoughts are that the Cambrian Explosion isn't a real event, but rather, prior to that, there wasn't a whole lot of biomineralization going on, and thus not a whole lot of fossils. But ever since then, the fossil record is pretty clear and supports evolution.
> Edward Samuel says"No
I can't find that quotation on the internet. Did you make it up? Anyway, that's dead wrong. You try explaining the fruit flies of Hawaii using some explanation other than genetic drift.
> Dr Carl Sagan
The movement of the tides is consistent with great magical power being used to push the water up and down. Gravitation is the better explanation, though. Thanks for playing.
> WHICH REQUIRE MORE FAITH
Creation requires faith. Science requires evidence. Thanks, again, for playing.
2007-12-21 05:51:46 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Generally speaking, scientific data is treated with scepticism until it has been repeated, and proven, and peer-reviewed (that means that other scientists have to be able to repeat the experiment/draw the same conclusions by following the same ethodology/reasoning).
And if scientific data is disproven? Then science changes. Copernicus changed the way that science thought about the planetary movements, despite it being based on the thoughts of a great master such as Aristotle. Eistein's theories displaced Newton's in accuracy (even if Newtonian physics is still used today because its accurate enough for our purposes).
Be the first to give an alternate explanation from fossil records - one that holds ground when peer reviewed, one that makes sense with the evidence that we see before our eyes, one that makes sense with DNA as well - and you'll be given the same credit as any other scientist.
"God did it" is WHY. Evolution is HOW. Two different questions, not actually mutually exclusive (which, by the way, is why the Carl Sagen quote isn't actually saying anything - "it *could* be consistent with the *idea* of a great designer" isn't necessarily saying "evolution sucks". It could be saying that maybe He's a geneticist, selective breeder and ecologist).
2007-12-21 05:23:15 · answer #3 · answered by caladria 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Archie, you've asked 7 questions in the last 22 hours, all of them in science categories, in which you question the basic scientific principles behind evolution, the Big Bang, and everything else that doesn't shore up with your ideas regarding the origin and development of life and the Universe. I have to ask: what are you trying to accomplish? Do you really think that every rational scientifically-literate person who reads these boards is going to suddenly think: "Hmmm, you know, this Archie person made me realize something...something that I've somehow failed to realize from the other 5,000 people that have come to these boards raising the exact same objections! Maybe we've been wrong this entire time. Maybe we should all just turn our backs on hundreds of years of scientific progress simply because Archie doesn't like the conclusions being made. Yeah, that makes perfect sense!"
Puh-leeease! Get real. The only thing you're doing is making yourself look uninformed and close-minded to anything having to do with real progress. Please, do yourself and your Creationist friends a favor...spread the word that just because the Bible might not be 100% literally accurate doesn't mean you have to come trashing real science on these boards. And do the rest of us a favor...the next time you feel the need to challenge accepted scientific principles, why don't you bring something that hasn't been successfully refuted thousands of times before. If you want to bring down a fortress, you're going to need more than pebbles, okay?
You know, I try to be sympathetic toward Creationists...I really do. I try to think "Oh well, I guess this person just hasn't read much real science and doesn't understand how things really work." But then, over and over again, you people ignore real science when it's presented to you and choose to continue believing the lies that have been passed down by your Creationist leaders. You perpetrate falsehoods like "there's no proof of evolution" or "something can't arise from nothing" or "evolutionists believe that men came from monkeys" and then gripe and moan that nobody takes you seriously. I wonder why...
Archie, please. Give it a rest. If you want to believe in God, fine. But don't whine when scientists use their God-given talent for finding the truth. Especially if that truth isn't what you want to hear.
2007-12-21 05:49:40 · answer #4 · answered by Lucas C 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
"progressive EVOLUTION from simple to complex is correct"
Incorrect. Evolution has no direction and is not exclusively directed to a particular good. It proceeds by random changes that may affect the ability of an organism to produce under prevailing conditions.
Evolution is constrained by its past. New structures and metabolic functions emerge from preexisting elements. For example, insect wings did not erupt spontaneously but appear to have developed gradually from small heat-exchange structures.
If you want to see "transitional structures", do not rely on the fossil record, as it is unreliable and you can't expect archetypes of every structure to be fossilized. Transitional structures and metabolic pathways are found all over the place: human zygote, glucose metabolism, photosynthesis, etc.
Btw: Don't capitalize YOUR WORDS IN the question. It gets annoying.
2007-12-21 05:26:15 · answer #5 · answered by Shinya 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
1. Many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared with great variety - "Suddenly", you mean the Cambrian explosion? FYI that explosion is for geological timescales. It happened over the course of roughly 100 million years. So that well supports evolution. - Creation "theory" predicts *every* kind of species to appear at the same time and not change forms since then. Winner: Theory of Evolution 2. No links to evolutionary ancestors before them - That.. is just complete nonsense. Go to a museum or look up websites like Berkley's for proof against your claim. Winner: Theory of Evolution 3. No evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them - Again, complete nonsense. This is a claim made by dishonest people who are trying to keep people ignorant. Don't drink the cool-aid but get the facts first. Winner: Theory of Evolution 4. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time - Yes. Punctuated equilibrium. Darwin even hinted at that. It's fully expected and predicted by evolutionary theory. - Creation "theory" also predicts this, but denies any changes happening at all. This is clearly not the case. Winner: Theory of Evolution 5. Some became extinct and.... - Fully expected and predicted by evolutionary theory. - Fully not expected by creation "theory". If everything was designed, why are some species dieing off? Bad design? Winner: Theory of Evolution 6. Some survive down to this day - Fully expected and predicted by evolutionary theory. - Expected by creation "theory" Winner: Tie I'm going out on a limb and think evolution has a slight advantage. With slight meaning mountains of evidence against some unsubstantiated claims.
2016-04-10 11:30:15 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is unfortunate that you don't really understand evolution. You are trying to use logic that was misconstrued on purpose to fit a belief system that has no evidence.
Let me try to dumb this down for you.
You are an evolutionary step from your parents. They passed along their DNA sequence to you BUT you also have characteristics unique to just you because you evolved also. Evolution is a very slow process. Fossil records show only the bones of a critter and never the flesh. It will be very difficult indeed to see much difference from one fossil to the next when it has broken down and turned to stone over the past 150 million years.
Evolution requires no faith at all. It is based on facts and evidence.
2007-12-21 05:22:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
there are many examples of transisition fossils,anyone who studies fossils could give you many examples of cases where there are incremental changes between older and newer species....If creationism where the case and dictated in the bible then why were humans the most complex species ever one of the last to develop and mature..I mean if all life came into existence at the same time why don't human fossils date back 4 billion years like some primitive life species....Saying that there are no transition fossils or that there are missing links in the development of human evolution is pure Christain propaganda...
2007-12-24 02:00:43 · answer #8 · answered by Jason C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My favorite part about this question is that he's basically irate that a field that hasn't had really serious funding for more than 50 years hasn't answered every single nitpicked question yet.
Here's a quick quote about the Cambrian explosion:
The cambrian explosion normally refers to an explosion of body plans, which resulted in the emergence of all of the phyla we currently see today, along with many others that went extinct. We didn't see the emergence of birds, reptiles or other later developed taxons of animals, but rather the emergence of a bilaterally symmetrical body plans (which resulted in most animals we're familiar with today) and radially symmetrical (starfish and jellyfish) body plans.
2007-12-21 05:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by tyler_shay4 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I don't know where you got this information, but there are plenty of transitional fossils. In fact, all the fossils found are transitional fossils. You should probably start using websites with a .edu to get information from, rather then creation websites. I have only seen misinformation in those sites.
2007-12-21 05:06:48 · answer #10 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Ah, a proponent of the "Every transitional fossil generates two more gaps in the fossil record" school of creationism.
You have been lied to.
2007-12-21 05:05:36 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋