Why Evolution is a ridiculous Fairytale

Give me a break. Evolution predicts noticeable transitional patterns all throughout the fossil record. Something on its way to being a giraffe, something on its way to gaining flight, transitions between the plethora of anthropods of the 'cambrian explosion'. This would be blatantly obvious in the organism's body plan.

Honestly, the elaborate poetry you evolutionists will conjure up to explain this away is quite a thing to witness.






The scientific method is a tool to infer the best explanation.

There is no, and has never been, any universal axiom of science that declares all roads must lead to a natural explanation.

That's nothing but a mantra from your church.

And your posts have devolved into mostly religious blathering that I can't be bothered to waste my time on any longer.

Living Fossils Display No Signs of Evolution's Long Ages

Sometimes called “Lazarus taxa,” living fossils are organisms that were thought to be extinct, only to turn up alive in modern populations. Ranging from magnolia flowers to gar fish, and from single-cell algal filaments to lobsters, the living counterpart looks so much like its fossilized predecessors that identification down to the species level is often possible.

One of the most spectacular living fossils is the coelacanth, a lobe-finned fish. Once known only from fossilized remains, this fish was considered by many to be a key transitional form (“missing link”) between fish and amphibians. Its fossils are found in Devonian strata, which are assigned a stunningly vast age of 400 million years. However, a live coelacanth hauled up in a fishing net off Madagascar in 1938 showed the same well-designed form as the fossils. It uses its unique fins to orient itself vertically in the deepest seas of the Indian Ocean, not for “walking” onto land from shallow waters. Where is any evidence of natural selection having made even one significant change in this fish over its supposed 400-million-year existence? A similar question could be asked of a host of living fossils.

The most straightforward explanation for why the living form looks so much like the fossilized one is that instead of eons of evolution having taken place, both were created recently.

[link to www.icr.org]


Funny that 400 million years did not have any effect on this fish.





This is an interesting insight into the 'model-cramming' of Evolution. When contradictions such as the above coelacanth arise, the evolutionists will create entirely new paradigms out of it... not because of supporting evidence, but based completely on the presupposition that Evolution = True.

Lazarus taxon

In paleontology, a Lazarus taxon (plural taxa) is a taxon that disappears from one or more periods of the fossil record, only to appear again later. The term refers to the account in the Gospel of John, in which Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Lazarus taxa are observational artifacts that appear to occur either because of (local) extinction, later resupplied, or as a sampling artifact. If the extinction is conclusively found to be total (global or worldwide) and the supplanting species is not a lookalike (an Elvis species), the observational artifact is overcome. The fossil record is inherently imperfect (only a very small fraction of organisms become fossilized) and contains gaps not necessarily caused by extinction, particularly when the number of individuals in a taxon becomes very low. If these gaps are filled by new fossil discoveries, a taxon will no longer be classified as a Lazarus taxon.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]


This is almost all they ever do.. They start from this one premise of Darwinian Evolution being an irrefutable truth, and cram any and all data into that model, no matter how absurd the contradiction.

It shows how an idea as vague as Common Descent can be largely unfalsifiable. It's only limits are the evolutionist's imagination.

i wonder why god didnt create a bird but instead created 10,000 species of birds? i wonder why god didnt create a tree but created 100,000 species of trees? i wonder why alligators resemble crocodiles? why are some of the animals in australia and madagascar so different than anywhere else in the world? why did an impersonal god create so much variety? does plant and animal breeding allow us to see evolution at work?

E. coli long-term evolution experiment
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Last Edited by Edge Rider on 10/02/2012 03:11 PM

[link to www.youtube.com]


It is now possible to accurately model human evolution on computer.

The mathematics demonstrate that any conceivable evolutionary advance is dwarfed, swamped and overwhelmed by the constant, AND OBSERVED, rate of deleterious mutation - a whopping 100 per generation! Natural selection barely affects the result.

Two-for-one wrongness.

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim a steady rate of change. It claims evolutionary change under environmental pressure.

(A different way of stating the latter is "differential opportunity." Aka a species randomly stumbles on a new food source or new environment or new behavior and natural selection then builds upon better adapting that organism to the new extingencies.)

Evolution, in fact, predicts that a well-adapted species will be stable. The only surprise about the shark and the tortoise is that their adaptation was flexible to carry them through some fairly large changes in Earth's biomes.



The second failure is that, no, these species are not locked in stone. There are noticeable and traceable morphological changes (in addition to the now-traceable molecular changes). This is because even a stable species drifts. And also because the molecular clocks are essentially independent of the functionality of the genome; the register of changes over time they carry does not translate into alterations of the phenotype.


But then, this is the ICR -- most of them simply don't know very much. Only a few of them know their subject well enough to have progressed to the status of outright lying about it. And an even smaller fraction still is actually trying to do honest work. It is a sad day when Demski stands out at the most honest Creationist out there.




You call it a frantic scrambling on the part of science. I call it getting around to reading Chapter Two on the part of the creationist. Their ignorance does not reflect on the knowledge base of evolutionary biology.




That's different. Probably too subtle for the ICR, tho.

This is an observation that a species -- like our own! -- can encounter a bottleneck, or can simply spend a few odd million years in an environment where fossilization events are unlikely. So there isn't necessarily any bizarre change to the species -- it is just an (as your source correctly quotes) an observational artifact.

I say again, fossilization is rare, and selective. It doesn't happen equally in all environments, to all species, or in all eras. This would seem to be a no-brainer but, well...!



Plus, you veer fatuously close here to requiring that science never advance. To paraphrase the old quote, "If we knew everything, there wouldn't be scientists any more."

When Darwin was writing, the fossil record was skimpy enough such a question would have never came up. You were lucky to get several consecutive fossils along the life span of a single species! With greater sampling, as new finds are constantly made, some gaps will shrink and other gaps will appear (as you increase the achievable resolution).

And that's not even counting the Arthropoda.

Questioner: And what have you concluded about the Creator from your lifetime study of his Creation?

J.B.S. Haldane: "That He had an inordinate fondness for beetles."

We're crossing wires here because you have an inaccurate conception of what a transitional species IS.

You appear to have this mental image of a dinosaurian morphing into a bird from the top down; first the reptile head turns into a beak, then the forelimbs turn into (feathered) wings, and for the last step the clawed reptilian feet suddenly turn bird-thin and webbed between the toes.

It is the "Crocoduck" silliness promoted by scoundrels such as the ICR.

A real example is something like, say, Plesiadapis, a late Paleocene mammal that sits close to the base of primates and Scandentia (modern tree shrews). It doesn't look like a monkey with the head of a squirrel! Nor does it look like a koala (as a representar of the earlier marsupials) crossed with a cow (representing Class Mammalia!)

It is a thing shaped like itself. Slender, furry, with a splendid bushy tail, an aboreal omnivore with a small brain case, mixed dentition, and strong curved claws.

Heh. I guess you decided no-one was reading the Sanford papers you linked (via the ICR of course...I refuse to believe you made your own pub med search!)

Well, at least I got a kick out of him. Pity he is so damned dishonest. It is disheartening -- how many Creationists are cheerfully open about lying. Somehow that is acceptable if it was for the cause, despite JOHN THE FREAKING BAPTIST reaching a different conclusion!

Anyhow, your paraphrase above is useful. The ICR claim is, and has been for a while across more than one writer, that there is a constant rate of deletorious mutation (and one quite large enough to swamp any beneficial mutation).

They are actually right within certain limited circumstances (one of them being the artificiality of a lab setting CHOOSING to bypass Natural Selection in order to learn about average mutational rates).




But before we get into this, I'd like to consider the implications. They are of course biblical.

Which is to say; the unstated implication is that everything is in decay. From the moment the Garden of Eden put up a set of fire wards, everything has been getting worse. Everything. Lives are shorter, nastier, and more brutal. Animals are smaller, less healthy, more vicious. People are less moral and upstanding.

You get the frigging picture.

Now, this is hardly a surprising philosophy. If you do any reading in history -- any history good enough to include translations from contemporary sources -- you would be hard-pressed to find an age that didn't think of itself as the tottering dregs of past glories, on the last legs before the final collapse into rust and slime.

Well, okay. There were a few optimistic times and peoples here and there! But classical and late Romans most certainly qualify, and they were not altogether wrong (inasmuch as things went to hell in that part of the world with the long lingering fall of the Empire). And so was much writing in Europe from the medieval age, taking a short break in the Rennaisance for some (and everyone else was talking about the crass modern age that had Gone Too Far...) And, well, long enough for this sidebar.

Point is, I personally find it both a disgusting philosophy and a stupid one. The world did not end when Caesar died, or when the first German Pope ascended, or when the atom was split, or when Obama was elected. It is going to go tottering on for quite a while yet.

And every single generation will look back at a past gold-tinted through fading memories, and forward at their own children, and say, "This can't possibly go on! Why, the youth of today....!"



Philosophy aside, it is mind-bogglingly stupid.

For various reasons the number and rate of genetic changes in bacterial lineages are smaller than that for complex multicellular life. But their generations are much, much shorter and there are VASTLY more of them (in total count, and in species. And, heck, even in biomass they roughly equal all other life on Earth).

So no-one gets sick anymore, right? No food ever decays if left out, right? Because those bacteria long ago reached the point of no return with deletorious mutations and went extinct.

Don't like bacteria? Then let's talk about bunnies. Since they, too, have shorter life spans and greater numbers than humanity, they also will have suffered disproportionally.

In fact, if you take the same math you have quoted so approvingly above, and apply it to Sylvilagus floridanus (the cottontail), you find it has replaced it's entire genome once over before 2,000 years have passed.

So at about the time a certain carpenter and street preacher was saying some very nice things, the local rabbit population stood six feet tall, spoke human language, and could fight a bear on even terms!

i thought everyone liked the Beatles?

Sanford was referring to mutations in humans.

Regardless of anyone's mental picture, and your inane ramblings, Evolutionists are still completely empty-handed. If they had even a hint of fossil evidence of a chain of morphology they would be parading it around nonstop.

Only one common DNA with all common life forms on Earth...It's a type of sea sponge. That sponge still in existance and is still a sponge today. All animal life forms from a sponge, says Science...I'm not religous, but I can't buy evolution as a total-package. Because of the science facts regarding the earlist ages of man. Where are the fossil between the sponge and leading up to earlist records of man or ape. Where did the big bang come from...it was always there!...Where did God come from...God was always there!...We don't need to know! Faith and Science please shake hands and move on...Where did the hands come from................no end

Have sympathy for the delusional: 2Th 2:11-12 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Exactly.

And nothing in his "research" (I'll get to that in a later post) was specific to humans.

In fact, the studies that he cited were mostly drosophilla melanogaster (like that's a surprise).

And let's not even get into Kimura's paper, from which Sanford took that chart he likes to flourish.

They are.

You may not recognize them -- they may not fit your preconceptions -- but there are a multitude of species represented in fossil that are cited over and over to describe the evolution of whatever species is being discussed.

I mean -- what of the half-dozen different species carrying the Linnean surname "afarensis?" Of some, there are a dozen more-or-less intact fossils from one site alone. And they are frequently mentioned as transitional. They are in textbooks. They are in museums. Some of them even go on multi-city tours to great publicity and acclaim.

You can not honestly claim that "evolutionists" are not parading around nonstop with specimens they call strong fossil evidence in the chain of morphology (to use your words). I am not sure how much MORE public you could get with some of these specimens. Maybe write a song about one?





(Yes...I know. And my inner fish wants the ukulele tabs for that one...)

Only because we aren't sponges.

Think about it. The common names (as opposed to the Linnean) are biased towards megafauna. It was important for speakers of Middle English to discriminate between pork and venison (although at the time, the word "meat" still meant "all food not otherwise specified.") It wasn't important to distinguish one worm, sea sponge, or intestinal bacteria from another.

Which is why the account of Noah goes on at length about cloven hooves versus non cloven, but waves a hand over fish, and doesn't even mention insects.

From the point of view of percentage variation in gross anatomy, two species of sponge are more different than you and one of the eight-foot tall four-armed green Martians in that recent movie. If there was a sponge that could talk, it would look at the Green Martian and say "Aw, just another human."

This thread is a failure considering the Vatican publicly announced its position supporting evolution.

Go back to 7th grade and learn some basic biology, will you guys?

Transitional Fossils
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

500 million years of "Evolution" from anthropods to humans and near trillions of fossils later and that's the 'evidence'. lol.

Of course they did. Vatican is Pagan. The Jesuits have great influence over our educational system, too.

Are you complaining about the paucity of numbers, or because they don't meet some arcane quality you seem reluctant to articulate?

Of course, that isn't a complete list. It doesn't pretend to be a complete list. It doesn't attempt to be a complete list. It is simply some highlights.

Hominid evolution alone (and these are fauna that are notoriously difficult to find fossils of; wrong landscape, prey animals, close enough to the apex of the local food pyramid to be less numerous in comparison with, say, herd animals, and small in numbers of top of that), hominid evolution alone has some two dozen distinct species (depending on how you count, and whether you are attempting direct lineage or considering all branches), many represented by multiple specimens.

Oh, and 500 million years is the time-table for vertebrates, not for close human ancestors. ("Anthropod" hasn't been in general use in the sciences since, oh, about the last time any of your friends in the ICR picked up a book. Which is to say...about the same time those damned suffragettes got the vote.)

It's all the same to you, isn't it. If they don't belong to your particular club (I'm beginning to think not just southern evangelical, but PMD), then they are all the same. Hence the "pagan jewish catholic satin-worshiping communist."

(But only RED satin!)

I was found by a rabbit one fresh dewey morning under a cabbage leaf.

Agree. Evolution is a fairytale. Science is bad.

why did god create 41000 Christian denominations? or maybe those are evolutionary subspecies...

[link to thesixthperspective.com]

You are misinformed.

Do you realize that the "CHANCE" of all the needed proteins and acids required for the simplest of LIFE blocks requires an EXACT combination of data/DNA to form ?

That "CHANCE" is 1 in 10 to the power of 80 = 1:10 with 80 zeros !!!!!! MORE THAN ALL THE STARS IN THE UNIVERSE !!!

Even if that "Happened" by "CHANCE" for further life to develop from this it would require a precise atmosphere to develop into a living being and the "CHANCE" of that happening is 1 : 10 to the power of 127 = 1:10 with 127 zeroes !!!

Then again for life to further apapt by "CHANCE" mutations and "Natural Selection" we would ALL look the same speak the same and live the same. Rediculous to say the least.

YOUR RELIGION (EVOLUTION) is a THEORY not based on TRUTH AT ALL.

Evolution is REDICULOUS to say the least it is a "RELIGION" because you have to believe in "CHANCE" to accomplish all the bizarre claims to support evolution.

WAKE UP MAN ! You believe everything the MEADIA tells you ? So obviously then you would believe that ISLAM is the religion of PEACE and OBAMA is a great president, AFRICA is a PARADISE with peace and harmony, Europe is unified etc etc.

PLEASE DONT SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE SO PLAINLY IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID which you are NOT.

Actually, no.

The quoted rate of combination is low, but that isn't the major problem. It is quoted for a single incident, when populations are in the billions, but although that is significant it is still not the major mistake.

The major mistake is in thinking it has to happen at one shot.

This is so peculiar. Whenever Creationists talk about evolution, they focus on Darwin -- they even call it "Darwinism" half the time. And, yet, they never seem to include NATURAL SELECTION. Which is what Darwinian evolution is. Which knocks your odds into a cocked hat!

What are the odds of drawing an inside straight? Got those? Now tell me the odds on successive rounds as you are allowed to SELECT one or two cards from your hand and request new cards from the dealer?

Those odds get pretty good after a few dozen rounds, don't they?

Sheesh. You want to attack evolution, you should at least know what it SAYS.

OH Please !

You still defend evolution even though the PROOF is there that makes you THEORY/RLIGION a complete farce !

As you correctly stated with the numbers in my first post a DNA strand MUST be formed AT ONCE in a single instance. Great CHANCE made this happen, now you have the DNA, how will it EVER develop/evolve into a living being without the precise conditions necesarry ?

The evolution THEORY suggests that due to the combination of chemicals in the atmosphere this building block/DNA came to life because of an electrical surge and formed a CELL. OK so now this CELL is formed but the atmosphere is still full of these chemicals WHICH WOULD KILL THE CELL INSTANTLY !

So for this THEORY to be valid the atmosphere, THE DNA and the CELL had to be TRANSFORMED in an instant ALL AT ONCE by CHANCE !!

Rediculous, you are digging a huge hole for yourself. Evolutionists has no SOLID GROUND to stand on, you make use of circular reasoning to justify the shortcomings of your THEORY/RELIGION which FAILS TIME UPON TIME.

Carbon Dating has been PROVEN to be a farce, the argument is very often used that a fossil is specific age due to the carbon dating of the rocks or earth around it and the age of the dirt is based on the carbon dating of the fossil ?

COME ON TRY AND PULL ANOTHER ONE, the evolution arguments are getting old and has been debunked in more ways that you can count, although you simply ignore the facts and make it of as RELIGIOUS nonsense, WHAT IS EVOLUTION then, time and again you are proved wrong but still you continue in your own ignorance ?

Obviously PRIDE is a major factor seeing as Evolutionists are "RESPECTED WORLD RENOWN SCIENTISTS" which will have to come down from their pedestal and admit they were wrong but instead of acknowledging this they stay on their perch and scream TRAITOR whenever they are proven wrong, as they know they will be seen as dumbasses that is chasing after smoke which disappears as soon as they find "proof", they just can't seem to grab hold of the smoke.

Humans are not the only animals on this planet that feels emotion. fish are also some of the oldest animals on earth what you think the cleaner fish just came up one day and started cleaning the sharks mouth and the shark was like sure ok? it took eons for that relationship to occur. the cleaner fish kept at it because it was easy food if your careful over time the shark grew to except these little fish as helpful and in time did not bother with such a small snack.


You have a small mind if you except so easily that everything was made by an imaginary god. Evolutionary theory is not perfect its a growing science, but GOD is just man made bs YOU can never prove god is real you dont know god is real you believe god is real end of discussion.