Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 23 September 2018, 3:28:23 AM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 164
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 445615 times)
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« on: 07 January 2009, 6:35:19 AM »

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a.   E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.
   
Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

« Last Edit: 07 January 2009, 6:54:25 AM by BoardManager » Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


Old Mike
Guest
« Reply #1 on: 07 January 2009, 9:43:16 AM »

I fail to see how this disproves evolution.
All it proves is that creatures with 3,4 or 5 cells either
a) Have not yet been discovered.
or,
b)Were not successful and were eliminated by evolution millions of years ago.
Such small creatures would be most unlikely to have been preserved as fossils, so we have no record that they existed.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 16 January 2009, 6:18:06 AM »

I fail to see how this disproves evolution.
All it proves is that creatures with 3,4 or 5 cells either
a) Have not yet been discovered.
or,
b)Were not successful and were eliminated by evolution millions of years ago.
Such small creatures would be most unlikely to have been preserved as fossils, so we have no record that they existed.

This is just one of numerous facts that add up to strong evidence against evolution. Your point a) implies faith. Point b) is erroneous. Many fossils of microorganisms have been found, but no transitional fossils of anything.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Old Mike
Guest
« Reply #3 on: 16 January 2009, 14:29:10 PM »

a) Does not imply anything. It is simply a statement of fact.
b) Please give a verifiable reference for fossil evidence of monocellular organisms.
Not huge aggregates such as stromatolites.

As to embryos looking like theie ancestore, if true, it is an interesting aside. If false it does not follow that modern forms did not evolve from earlier ones.
Logged
so what
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 379


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 16 January 2009, 15:03:50 PM »

I am with Old Mike on this one. The initial post doesn't disprove anything.

Science is not looking for plain multi celled organisms. Science is looking for reversably complex organisms, which appear not to exist.
Finding a reversable complex organism could explain an evolutionary development.

Upto now there are only two comments to make:
1) It is a fact that no reversable complex organisms have been found, or non complex multi celled organisms.
2) The evolutionary process of development from non complex single cell to complex multi celled organism is a hypothesis only.

If we were to let Occams Razor set the rule, the most simple explanation would occur to be the most plausible.
« Last Edit: 16 January 2009, 15:05:25 PM by so what » Logged
skep
Full Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 20 January 2009, 19:32:13 PM »

No transitional fossils of anything, are you completely bonkers?  There are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren't, but you're either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you're claiming to be authoritative on
Logged
so what
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 379


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 20 January 2009, 23:44:29 PM »

Well, skep, to some extend Pahu has a point.
There are indeed no transitional fossils in the category he is referring to, and in fact a fossil record of such transitions in multi-celled organisms is still missing.

Since you apparently are aware of an abundance of examples of such transitions, for my personal enlightenment and development, could you summarize a few?

The record we are looking for is often referred to as "the mouse trap", where all the parts of the mouse trap together make a purposeful contraption, but when one part is missing the complete contraption becomes purposeless.

In evolutionary terms, the question is what caused various single celled organisms, each with their own purpose, to fuse into a multi-celled organism with a new purpose, whilst any cellular deduction of the multi-celled organism would cause the complete organism to fail in its purpose?

Would there be indeed an abundance of transitions, evolution would be easily explained, proven and accepted.
(Un)fortunately this is by far not the case.
Logged
skep
Full Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 21 January 2009, 11:58:18 AM »

The phrase "no transitional fossils of anything" implies just that.  Perhaps Pahu will clarify.
Logged
so what
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 379


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 21 January 2009, 15:25:23 PM »

Skep,

I am still very interested to receive your abundant examples.
Please post a few.
Logged
skep
Full Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 21 January 2009, 18:43:55 PM »

Sorry I didn't think it was a serious request.

Titaalik, ambulocetus, archeopteryx.... Come on, if you are genuinely interested do some research of your own. 

But as we're on the topic I am now ever so curious as to what Pahu thinks about transitional fossils (of any kind). 
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 22 January 2009, 6:11:00 AM »

No transitional fossils of anything, are you completely bonkers?  There are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren't, but you're either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you're claiming to be authoritative on


Where are they?
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: 22 January 2009, 6:23:05 AM »

The phrase "no transitional fossils of anything" implies just that.  Perhaps Pahu will clarify.

Definitions of “species” and (therefore) “speciation” remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as “speciation events”—yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.

In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework.  This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.”[/i] [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred.  The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“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.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists.  Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...  The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis.  Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.  They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance.  In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, “Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.”

What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists’ own words, and the actual fossil record itself!  If Isaak’s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this “spokesperson”?

Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, “notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.” Yet these same alleged “transitional sequences” remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the “experts”) than any other.  Isaak declares them “notable examples,” apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.

Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 22 January 2009, 6:26:41 AM »

Embryology 2

Ernst Haeckel, by deliberately falsifying his drawings (b), originated and popularized this incorrect but widespread belief. Many modern textbooks continue to spread this false idea as evidence for evolution (c).

b.   Haeckel, who in 1868 advanced this “biogenetic law” that was quickly adopted in textbooks and encyclopedias worldwide, distorted his data. Thompson explains:

“A natural law can only be established as an induction from facts. Haeckel was of course unable to do this. What he did was to arrange existing forms of animal life in a series proceeding from the simple to the complex, intercalating [inserting] imaginary entities where discontinuity existed and then giving the embryonic phases names corresponding to the stages in his so-called evolutionary series. Cases in which this parallelism did not exist were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the embryological development had been falsified. When the ‘convergence’ of embryos was not entirely satisfactory, Haeckel altered the illustrations of them to fit his theory. The alterations were slight but significant. The ‘biogenetic law’ as a proof of evolution is valueless.” [/i] W. R. Thompson, p. 12.

“To support his case he [Haeckel] began to fake evidence. Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries; he was merely filling in and reconstructing the missing links when the evidence was thin, and he claimed unblushingly that ‘hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge.’” [/i]Pitman, p. 120.

M. Bowden, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? 2nd edition (Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications, 1981), pp. 142–143.

Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 6, June 1969, pp. 27–34.

“...ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, meaning that in the course of its development [ontogeny] an embryo recapitulates [repeats] the evolutionary history of its species [phylogeny]. This idea was fathered by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life’s unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point.” [/i] Fix, p. 285.

[/i] Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 430.

“It looks like it’s turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology.” [/i]Michael K. Richardson, as quoted by Elizabeth Pennisi, “Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Science, Vol. 277, 5 September 1997, p. 1435.

“When we compare his [Haeckel’s] drawings of a young echidna embryo with the original, we find that he removed the limbs (see Fig. 1). This cut was selective, applying only to the young stage. It was also systematic because he did it to other species in the picture. Its intent is to make the young embryos look more alike than they do in real life.” [/i] Michael K. Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, “A Question of Intent: When Is a ‘Schematic’ Illustration a Fraud?” Nature, Vol. 410, 8 March 2001, p. 144.

c.    “Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review articles, and continue to exert a significant influence on the development of ideas in this field.” [/i]  Michael K. Richardson et al., “There Is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates,” Anatomy and Embryology, Vol. 196, No. 2, August 1997, p. 104.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#wp1009086

Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
skep
Full Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: 22 January 2009, 8:26:10 AM »

Argumentum verbosium anyone?
Logged
skep
Full Member
***
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 22 January 2009, 8:47:36 AM »

Let’s stick with transitional fossils for a minute, just because I think they’re cool.

Instead of spamming us with nonsense from a creationist propaganda website why don’t you explain (in your own words would be nice) why you deny the existence of transitional fossils? 

We could start with transition from primitive jawless fish to sharks, skates, and rays if you like.  Or primitive jawless fish to bony fish.  From primitive bony fish to amphibians, or just list the transitions among the amphibians:

Temnospondyls, e.g Pholidogaster (Mississippian, about 330 Ma) -- A group of large labrinthodont amphibians, transitional between the early amphibians (the ichthyostegids, described above) and later amphibians such as rhachitomes and anthracosaurs. Probably also gave rise to modern amphibians (the Lissamphibia) via this chain of six temnospondyl genera , showing progressive modification of the palate, dentition, ear, and pectoral girdle, with steady reduction in body size (Milner, in Benton 1988). Notice, though, that the times are out of order, though they are all from the Pennsylvanian and early Permian. Either some of the "Permian" genera arose earlier, in the Pennsylvanian (quite likely), and/or some of these genera are "cousins", not direct ancestors (also quite likely).
   
Dendrerpeton acadianum (early Penn.) -- 4-toed hand, ribs straight, etc.

Archegosaurus decheni (early Permian) -- Intertemporals lost, etc.

Eryops megacephalus (late Penn.) -- Occipital condyle splitting in 2, etc.

Trematops spp. (late Permian) -- Eardrum like modern amphibians, etc.
   
Amphibamus lyelli (mid-Penn.) -- Double occipital condyles, ribs very small, etc.

Doleserpeton annectens or perhaps Schoenfelderpeton (both early Permian) -- First pedicellate teeth! (a classic trait of modern amphibians) etc.)

We could carry from amphibians to amniotes, from synapsid reptiles to mammals, from diapsid reptiles to birds... throw in a few primates for good measure…

I suspect I am wasting my time here as you are claiming that none of these exist.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 164
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines