Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 23 August 2017, 19:49:33 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145]
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 394177 times)
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2160 on: 28 July 2017, 23:36:39 PM »

I wondered when we would get back to Behe.

Follow this link:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

And this

introduction

Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly — and here's why.

"Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.

Behe's flawed argument

Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this:

(P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
(P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
(C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.
Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.

The Mullerian two-step

With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's "irreducible" conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor:

Add a part.
Make it necessary.
It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and gradually from a simpler, functional precursor. And this is exactly what Behe alleges is impossible.

As a scientific explanation, the Mullerian two-step is extremely general and powerful, since it is independent of the biological specifics of the system in question. In fact, both steps can happen simultaneously, in a single event, even a single mutation. The function of the system can remain constant during the process or it can change. The steps can be functionally beneficial (adaptive) or not (neutral). We don't even need to invoke natural selection in the process — genetic drift or neutral evolution will do4. The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both.
Logged


Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2161 on: 29 July 2017, 2:09:31 AM »

I wondered when we would get back to Behe.

Follow this link:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

The evidence free information in your article is a prime example of evolutionist imagination. The fact remains that the disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Powerhouse of Scientists Refute Evolution

The information of life is in a state of gradual decay, not upward evolution, according to at least eight technical papers published in the proceedings of a unique symposium called Biological Information: New Perspectives.1

Its 23 reports from 29 different authors showed the virtual impossibility of Darwinian selection building biologically meaningful genetic information. The third of three major themes at the symposium centered on "Difficulties in Preventing Erosion of Biological Information," according to a helpful Synopsis of the Symposium proceedings.2

Michael Behe, famous for his book Darwin's Black Box, reviewed reports of mutations that led to new functions. Even these have always led to an overall loss of biological information. But taken altogether, most mutations cause a loss-of-function, like a mutation that erases an enzyme's ability to manipulate a particular sugar. The loss of ability to manipulate that sugar may actually help the organism to survive, for instance, where its enzyme might grab a poisonous chemical that mimics the sugar. The Synopsis reads, "Because loss-of-function mutations inherently involve loss of information, there tends to be a net loss of information even while meaningful adaptation is happening."2 So, even when genetic loss leads to increased survival, information is lost forever.

In another report, plant geneticists Paul Gibson and John Sanford teamed with computation experts John Baumgardner and Wesley Brewer to test whether or not natural selection could preserve biological information, adding to Behe's observations. They found that selection cannot remove what it cannot "see." Most single mutations have little to no effect, so these very slight DNA alterations "accumulate continuously, like rust on a car," according to the Synopsis.2 Thus, evolutionary geneticists are incorrect when they claim that natural selection can somehow preserve biological information. It can't and doesn't.

In his Symposium paper, University of Texas mathematician Granville Sewell tackled the evolutionary argument that an outside energy source can reverse the universal tendency of complicated information systems to decay over time. For example, can mere sunlight entering earth somehow organize the molecules of life or expand the repertoire of living systems? Sewell examined the central formula describing disorganizing systems—one found in standard college thermodynamics textbooks. It shows that order cannot enter a system any faster than it can pass through the boundary between the outside world and that system. Because of this, importing sunlight into a living cell would add no more biological information to it than importing sunlight into a computer would build new software.

Sanford wrote of thermodynamics expert Andy MacIntosh's Symposium paper, "The fallacy is in the assertion that energy on its own can build the necessary machinery of life."2 Some intelligent person, or an intelligently designed machine like a robot, must direct that energy in specific ways to build machines, including those found inside cells.

These qualified scientists examined Darwinian evolution from about two dozen angles, and found a fatal flaw in each one. No living cell can can download or reinstall its original operating system, but it's not too late for scientists and other thinking people to download and install the clear concept that eroding information continually deteriorates living systems—just the opposite of Darwinian evolution's story.

References

1. Biological Information: New Perspectives. 2013. Marks, R. J., M. J. Behe, W. A. Dembski, B. L. Gordon, and J. C. Sanford, Eds. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
2. Sanford, J. C. 2014. Biological Information: New Perspectives. A Synopsis and Limited Commentary. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.

http://www.icr.org/article/8194/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2162 on: 29 July 2017, 13:32:16 PM »

More Behe.
Not worth reading again.
Try something new.
By the way, when are creationists going to demonstrate the acceleration of radioactive decay?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2163 on: 29 July 2017, 23:11:37 PM »


By the way, when are creationists going to demonstrate the acceleration of radioactive decay?


The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

Radioactive isotopes are commonly portrayed as providing rock-solid evidence that the earth is billions of years old. Since such isotopes are thought to decay at consistent rates over time, the assumption is that simple measurements can lead to reliable ages. But new discoveries of rate fluctuations continue to challenge the reliability of radioisotope decay rates in general—and thus, the reliability of vast ages seemingly derived from radioisotope dating.

In 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match.

Since that time, investigators have yet to discover a satisfying physical mechanism explaining how the sun might accelerate the decay of radioactive atomic nuclei.2 For example, although at the time of the Brookhaven and Stanford reports solar neutrinos were implicated, it appears that neutrinos are just too small and too few. The chances seem too slim for enough neutrinos to collide with enough radioactive atoms to have caused the observed fluctuations.

However, a new report on a separate isotope has again correlated radioisotope decay acceleration with nearness to the sun.3 The investigators locked radioactive radon-222 gas in a lead chamber and compared radioactive readouts taken from both inside and outside the chamber. The experiment was designed to test whether or not changes in radon decay rates are due to atmospheric effects such as gases mixing. The researchers found instead that significant changes were cyclical and corresponded to the relative positions of the earth and the sun.

They wrote, "Combining these observations implies a strong inter-connection between the seasonal and diurnal patterns. This in turn again implies a mutual connection to the rotation of earth around its axis and its rotation around the sun."3 The radon decay rates accelerated during the daylight hours and during the summer. Other rate fluctuations were irregular and remain mysterious.

Some unknown factor affects certain radioisotope decay rates. If this, or a similar factor, altered nuclear decay rates of the systems that are routinely used in rock dating, then any "age" determination provided by this method would have been compromised. And this is exactly what the Institute for Creation Research's project Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) reported in 2005.

In particular, RATE scientists found that radioisotope decay rates had been accelerated by orders of magnitude in the past and that one or more such acceleration events vastly inflated the apparent age of rocks (i.e., the age derived from the assumption that radioisotope decay has been constant through time). For example, RATE found a high accumulation of helium, a product of radioisotope decay, still trapped inside small crystals.4 If evolutionary ages are accurate, the helium should have leaked into the atmosphere millions of years ago. RATE researchers also found radiohalos and fission tracks, which are microscopic scars in minerals. Such scars could only exist if the parent isotope's decay rate had been dramatically accelerated.5

Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.

http://www.icr.org/article/6246/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2164 on: 30 July 2017, 17:40:10 PM »

You   have posted this before.
Then, as now, the key remark is.
"   
Quote
Nobody yet knows what (or who) accelerated nuclear decay in the past, just as nobody yet knows what mechanism causes the sun-related decay of silicon-32 or radon-222. But science clearly shows that radioisotope decay rates have not been constant or reliable enough to support the standard geological ages assigned to earth materials.
   
           
There is no evidence that decay rates have been significantly different in the past.
If, as you claim, the universe is merely thousands of years old, the only logical explanation is that your god, who made the warthog, the toucan, the platypus and the politician has a sense of humour.
The only way to resolve this dispute is to conduct conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives  of the media, demonstrating the truth of greatly accelerated rates of decay.

Why do creationists not carry out such experiments?



                                                             
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2165 on: 30 July 2017, 23:51:46 PM »

You posted:

Quote
n 2009, New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data showed that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements.1 To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected these radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match   


However, further work has shown these measurements to be flawed.


Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) researchers refute the assumption that the decay rate of some radioactive nuclides depends on the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The distance between the Earth and the Sun has no influence on the decay rate of radioactive chlorine. You could ask: "And why should it anyway?", because it is well known that the decay of radionuclides is as reliable as a Swiss clock. Recently, US-American scientists, however, attracted attention when they postulated that the decay rate depends on the flow of solar neutrinos and, thus, also on the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Their assumption was based, among other things, on older measurement data of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). PTB researchers have now definitively refuted the assumption of the Americans.
The half-life of radioactive isotopes, i.e. the period in which half of all atomic nuclei have decayed, is regarded as invariably stable. In the case of the carbon isotope 14C, this period amounts, for example, to 5700 years. This property is, among other things, made use of for the dating of archeological findings. There was great excitement when a group of US-American scientists recently published measurement data of the radioactive isotope 36Cl which showed seasonal variations and explained this with the influence of solar neutrinos. All the more since billions of neutrinos from the Sun hit every square centimetre of the Earth every second and remain almost ineffective (they penetrate the Earth as if it weren't there).
Scientists of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt have now carried out new measurements and have published their results in the journal "Astroparticle Physics". For three years, they checked the activity of samples with 36Cl in order to detect possible seasonal dependencies. Whereas the US-Americans had determined the count rates with gas detectors, PTB used the so-called TDCR liquid scintillation method which largely compensates disturbing influences on the measurements. The result: The measurement results of PTB clearly show fewer variations and do not indicate any seasonal dependence or the influence of solar neutrinos. "We assume that other influences are much more probable as the reason for the observed variations", explains PTB physicist Karsten Kossert. "It is known that changes in the air humidity, in the air pressure and in the temperature can definitively influence sensitive detectors."
Meanwhile, the data of another measurement series − this time for the strontium isotope 90Sr − have been evaluated and submitted for publication. Here too, even sophisticated analyzing methods give no indication of seasonal variations. It can thus be assumed that an influence of solar neutrinos on the radioactive decay does not exist − at least not in the order of magnitude postulated.
 Explore further: New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning
More information: Karsten Kossert, Ole J. Nähle: "Long-term measurements of 36Cl to investigate potential solar influence on the decay rate." Astroparticle Physics 55 (2014) 33-36


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html#jCp

This is how science progresses.
It is a typical creationist ploy to cherry pick stuff that seems to prove support their ideas.

Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2166 on: 31 July 2017, 4:31:51 AM »

Why do you not just say " the universe is 6000 odd years old and god planted all this stuff so he could laugh at people who used their minds"?
1 Corinthians 1 :24  This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans,
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2167 on: 03 August 2017, 4:01:53 AM »

Fossil Gaps 11


“It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.”   Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

“... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.” E. J. H. Corner, “Evolution,” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2168 on: 03 August 2017, 4:39:14 AM »

Quote
   Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.
   
70 years ago.

Quote
” Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.   

56 years ago.

This from 2014:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360123/
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2169 on: 09 August 2017, 21:33:41 PM »

Fossil Gaps 12


“The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.” Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

“The origin of angiosperms, an ‘abominable mystery’ to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.” Colin Patterson et al., “Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2170 on: 10 August 2017, 1:20:35 AM »

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer on March 1, 20055
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.
We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process.
One of the finest compilations of evolutionary data and theory since Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species is Richard Dawkins's magnum opus, The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (Houghton Mifflin, 2004)--688 pages of convergent science recounted with literary elegance. Dawkins traces numerous transitional fossils (what he calls "concestors," the last common ancestor shared by a set of species) from Homo sapiens back four billion years to the origin of heredity and the emergence of evolution. No single concestor proves that evolution happened, but together they reveal a majestic story of process over time.
We know evolution happened because of a convergence of evidence.
Consider the tale of the dog. With so many breeds of dogs popular for so many thousands of years, one would think there would be an abundance of transitional fossils providing paleontologists with copious data from which to reconstruct their evolutionary ancestry. In fact, according to Jennifer A. Leonard, an evolutionary biologist then at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, "the fossil record from wolves to dogs is pretty sparse." Then how do we know whence dogs evolved? In the November 22, 2002, Science, Leonard and her colleagues report that mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) data from early dog remains "strongly support the hypothesis that ancient American and Eurasian domestic dogs share a common origin from Old World gray wolves."

P.S
When are we going to see creationists  conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives  of the media, demonstrating the truth of greatly accelerated rates of decay.



Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2171 on: 10 August 2017, 4:21:06 AM »

The Fossil Fallacy
Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science
By Michael Shermer on March 1, 20055
Nineteenth-century English social scientist Herbert Spencer made this prescient observation: "Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all." Well over a century later nothing has changed. When I debate creationists, they present not one fact in favor of creation and instead demand "just one transitional fossil" that proves evolution. When I do offer evidence (for example, Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales), they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record.
This is a clever debate retort, but it reveals a profound error that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a "single fossil"--one bit of data--constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence. In fact, proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:


On Making a Whale

Students in science classrooms or watching PBS are often confronted with blatant evolutionary claims that seem to go against common logic. Simply asking “How do you know that to be true?” will often ferret out the truth, and we can avoid being intimidated into believing a lie.



One such evolutionary claim that has been around since the days of Darwin asserts that whales (which are mammals, not fish or reptiles) descended from some four-footed land mammal. Darwin thought that it was a bear-like animal that evolved into whales, but today evolutionists disagree. Some speculate that hoofed animals (like cattle) or wolf-like carnivores were the ancestors of whales. Others insist that DNA evidence indicates that the ancestors were hippopotamus-like. More recently, evolutionists claimed deer-like, raccoon-size animals had evolved into whales.

Despite their inability to identify which land mammal evolved into whales, evolutionists insist that fossils have been discovered that document this claim, making it a major talking point in the teaching of evolution. While it is true that there are similarities between all mammals, and a few fossils have been found in strata that have been “dated” in the proper “ages” (according to evolution) that seem consistent with such a story of transformation, is this story credible and is the fossil evidence sufficient? What would be the evolutionist’s answer to the “How do you know that to be true” question?

The whale ancestor most often cited is Pakicetus, a four-legged land animal somewhat like a wolf (Figure 1). In reality, the original fossil consisted of only the skull, and years later more partial bones were added. Yet the artists’ sketches of the creature show it swimming and catching fish. Is this convincing evidence of a pre-whale?

The next fossil supposedly spanning the transition is Ambulocetus natans, a swimming mammal. Again only partial remains were found, dispersed and shattered. What was recovered indicated that this animal was a powerful swimmer, propelling itself along much like a walrus. Like some other mammals, it spent time on both land and in the sea, but this does not make it transitional.

Finally, there is Basilosaurus, a 60 foot-long serpentine sea creature. Its fossils were first assumed to be those of a snake, not at all whale-like. A tiny 6-inch leg was discovered near one of the fossils, widely touted as proof this was a whale with legs. The association of the 6-inch leg with the 60-foot body is at least tenuous, and even if the association is correct, the legs would be totally inadequate for walking. Many evolutionists have concluded that, if genuine, they were more likely used as a guide and stabilizer in copulation.

A whale has so many seemingly designed features that are substantially different from any land or land/sea creature that the claim of a tetrapod evolving into a whale is simply not credible. Not only are the special organs and abilities too specific to be adaptations from a radically different creature, the proposed fossil transitions are not sufficient to make any such claim.

Asking probing questions will often expose weaknesses in evolutionary claims.1 Teachers appreciate legitimate questions from students, if asked in a respectful manner. They might even help the teacher (as well as the other students) recognize the obvious weakness in evolutionary “evidence” and help them to consider the alternative: God created all the creatures—including the spectacular whales—exactly as they are just as Genesis says.

Reference

1. ICR’s book The Fossil Record contains a similar but expanded discussion of this. See chapter 10 and the appendix. Morris, J. and F. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.icr.org/article/making-whale/
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2172 on: 10 August 2017, 16:23:56 PM »

When are we going to see creationists  conduct a repeatable experiment, verified by qualified scientists and witnessed by representatives  of the media, demonstrating the truth of greatly accelerated rates of decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1183



View Profile
« Reply #2173 on: 16 August 2017, 21:43:32 PM »

Fossil Gaps 13


d.    “The insect fossil record has many gaps.” “Insects: Insect Fossil Record,” Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e.   Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

“As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.” Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

“How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.” Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

“Origin of the vertebrates is obscure—there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.” Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f.    “... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.” [  Taylor, p. 60.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1076


View Profile
« Reply #2174 on: 17 August 2017, 18:13:17 PM »

Just because they have not been found yet, it does not mean that they are not waiting to be discovered.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines