Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1429604 wrote: okay! what are Brown's registered qualifications in the field of Evolutionary science?


Evolution and science are a contradiction of terms.

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1429608 wrote: Where is your evidence to support this assertion? "If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers"


That is the original and current definition of evolution:

3. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

So far those changes have not been observered in nature or the lab.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1429661 wrote: That is the original and current definition of evolution:

3. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

So far those changes have not been observered in nature or the lab.Yes they have. It doesn't matter in the slightest that Walt Brown isn't capable of recognizing the evidence or that you swallow his spew.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1429662 wrote: Yes they have. It doesn't matter in the slightest that Walt Brown isn't capable of recognizing the evidence or that you swallow his spew.


Then why are you unwilling to share that "evidence"?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1429661 wrote: That is the original and current definition of evolution:

3. Biology

a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

So far those changes have not been observered in nature or the lab.


Sorry, but that is neither the original, nor the current definition of evolution, by any dictionary that matters.

And you did not answer my question.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1429674 wrote: Then why are you unwilling to share that "evidence"?There's been plenty of evidence offered in this thread throughout but you've ignored it, instead insisting that your guru's spew is accurate.

Funny that you christians are the most hardened liars of all. You aren't going to win any converts that way. Thanks for making it all that much easier for atheists such as myself. :wah:

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1429680 wrote: Sorry, but that is neither the original, nor the current definition of evolution, by any dictionary that matters.

And you did not answer my question.


That was the answer to your question.

What is the definition of evolution, by any dictionary that matters?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1429682 wrote: There's been plenty of evidence offered in this thread throughout but you've ignored it, instead insisting that your guru's spew is accurate.


Then why are you unwilling to share that "evidence"?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1429699 wrote: That was the answer to your question.

What is the definition of evolution, by any dictionary that matters?


Well, I'm glad you asked.

Here is a small sampling.

And this even provides an excellent example of evolution.

From the 1828 edition of the Webster's Unabridged:

EVOLU''TION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.

1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.

2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they change into a straight line.

3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.

4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.




From the Noah Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913: (pay particular attention to # 6



1. The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.

2. A series of things unrolled or unfolded.

"The whole evolution of ages." Dr. H. More.

3 The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute.

4. The extraction of roots -- the reverse of involution.

5. A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet] any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.

ex: Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity. - Campbell.

6. A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.

7. That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The process is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously explained by different philosophers.




And from the more recent, Merriam Websters 2013 edition



1: one of a set of prescribed movements

2:

a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding

b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission

c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance

d : something evolved

3: the process of working out or developing

4

a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny

b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

5: the extraction of a mathematical root

6: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1429700 wrote: Then why are you unwilling to share that "evidence"?Go back through the thread. Recall these posts? All you've done throughout this thread is offer stubborn insistence that You, Michael Behbe and Walt Brown are right even though the three of you have been proven wrong at every turn.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346503

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346542

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346557

[Pahu]

LarsMac;1429702 wrote: Well, I'm glad you asked.

Here is a small sampling.

And this even provides an excellent example of evolution.

From the 1828 edition of the Webster's Unabridged:



From the Noah Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913: (pay particular attention to # 6



And from the more recent, Merriam Websters 2013 edition


My error. I thought you were interested in the definition of biological evolution.

[Ahso!]

I'm still waiting for you to share with us Walt Brown's credentials on evolutionary science. I noticed you've conveniently neglected to post them. And don't bother posting how smart you and Brown believe Brown to be. Credentials, Pahu, cold - hard credentials. Got any?

[LarsMac]

Pahu;1429705 wrote: My error. I thought you were interested in the definition of biological evolution.


Evolution is evolution.

As you can see, the biological concept did not exist in 1828.

It was, however addressed in the 1913 edition. (Note item 6)

6. A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.


And in the more recent one:

4

a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny

b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory


However, I don't see your definition in any of them.

Perhaps you would share the source of your definition?

Which still fails to answer my original question.

Let me repeat:

Where is your evidence to support this assertion? "If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers"

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1429703 wrote: Go back through the thread. Recall these posts? All you've done throughout this thread is offer stubborn insistence that You, Michael Behbe and Walt Brown are right even though the three of you have been proven wrong at every turn.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346503


No refutation here. The Flagellum Unspun is an attempt to disprove the fact that the flagellum is not irreducible. They failed and only gave their opinions rather than facts.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346542


No refutation here. You just ask the question: "Just to amuse you, Palu, on what page in his book will I find the science (remember, we're talking about findings from an actual experiment)? Give me the page number and I'll read it. A friend of mine has the book."

Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box," is filled with the science supporting his conclusions.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1346557


No refutation here. All you have done is deny the facts. Apparently your idea of a refutation is opinion rather that facts.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1429705 wrote: My error. I thought you were interested in the definition of biological evolution.You know what, Pahu, you haven't been talking about biological evolution, you've been talking about something else altogether.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1429711 wrote: No refutation here. The Flagellum Unspun is an attempt to disprove the fact that the flagellum is not irreducible. They failed and only gave their opinions rather than facts.



No refutation here. You just ask the question: "Just to amuse you, Palu, on what page in his book will I find the science (remember, we're talking about findings from an actual experiment)? Give me the page number and I'll read it. A friend of mine has the book."

Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box," is filled with the science supporting his conclusions.



No refutation here. All you have done is deny the facts. Apparently your idea of a refutation is opinion rather that facts.You have no shame do you, Pahu. You and others like you are the real deniers of your God and creation because you lie all the way through life. Everything you posted above is false.

[Ahso!]

Brown's credentials, Pahu. Where are they?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1429716 wrote: Brown's credentials, Pahu. Where are they?


Walt Brown is not only an engineer, but is also quite knowledgeable in many other disciplines as well including geology and paleontology:

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years of military service included: Director of Benét Laboratories (a major research, development, and engineering facility); tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full time in research, writing, and teaching on creation and the flood.

For those who wish to know more about Walt Brown, a new book (Christian Men of Science: Eleven Men Who Changed the World by George Mulfinger and Julia Mulfinger Orozco) devotes a chapter to Brown. It may be read by clicking here:

The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

Getting a Masters Degree

Brown chose to transfer into a technically oriented branch of the Army—the Ordnance Corps. This branch dealt with the Army’s equipment, and he felt sure he could find interesting things there.

He was excited to learn that the Ordnance Corps would send him to get a master’s degree. Engineering fascinated him, so he went to study mechanical engineering at New Mexico State University. At New Mexico State, he found that his mechanical engineering courses were interesting but not difficult, so he also took many physics and math courses.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting a Masters Degree

Getting into the Creation Movement



Brown had been teaching at the War College for several years and was offered a splendid job as the Director of the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory near Boston. He seriously considered this job because it would put him around experts in geology and geophysics, even if they were evolutionists. Brown was now very interested in geology because of his study of the global flood. His investigation of creation and the flood had started as scientific curiosity, but as he saw the implications, it grew into a passionate hobby.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Getting into the Creation Movement

Seminars and Debates

After retiring from the military, Dr. Brown moved to the Chicago area and began giving creation seminars and debating evolutionists. He prepared strenuously for his seminars and debates. He always assumed that several people in the audience knew more about a topic than he did, and he didn’t want to disappoint them. He forced himself to be very broad because people would ask questions concerning the Bible, genetics, astronomy, physics, geology, or chemistry. Dr. Brown’s training as an engineer gave him the tools to explore many disciplines. Engineers ask questions and look for realistic solutions. By definition, engineering—sometimes called applied science—deals with making science useful to people. And that is exactly what Dr. Brown did in his seminars.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Seminars and Debates

Crossroads

He decided to devote himself to studying geology from the evolutionists’ perspective. He realized that most creationists don’t study what the evolutionists are saying—seeing their reasoning and going through their calculations. He knew that a good lawyer knows the other case as well as the opposing lawyer knows it. A solid knowledge of geology would help him build a stronger case for creation.

So Peggy found a teaching job and Walt signed up to study geology at Arizona State University. Dr. Robert S. Dietz, one of the world’s leading geologists, taught there. Several years earlier in 1981, Dr. Brown had given a lecture on creation at Arizona State after the university had been unable to find an evolutionist debater. Days before the lecture, Dr. Dietz asked if he could comment after the lecture. He talked for ten minutes giving his reasons why he thought Dr. Brown was wrong. Then Dr. Brown challenged him to a written, purely scientific debate—no religion allowed. Earlier that day when Dr. Brown had lunch with Dr. Dietz, Dr. Dietz had flatly refused to participate in a written debate. But now that he was in front of this large audience, he agreed. The audience applauded and the newspaper featured the upcoming written debate.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Crossroads

Learning Geology

Now that Dr. Brown would be walking the halls of the geology department, he decided he had better say hello to Dr. Dietz. By now, Dr. Brown knew exactly who Robert S. Dietz was. He was the leading atheist of the Southwest, completely hostile to creationists. He was also a world-famous geologist, one of the founders of the plate tectonic theory—one of the most significant theories of the twentieth century in the opinion of most scientists.

Dr. Brown went to Dr. Dietz’s office and told him he was there to learn geology from Dr. Dietz’s perspective. Oddly enough, that was the beginning of their friendship. Dr. Dietz offered to meet with Dr. Brown each Wednesday afternoon for several hours of discussion. They spent hundreds of hours discussing geology, comparing Dr. Dietz’s plate tectonic theory and Dr. Brown’s hydroplate theory. After their private sessions, they went down to the Wednesday afternoon geology forum and listened to a visiting geology speaker. Sometimes Dr. Dietz would invite Dr. Brown out to eat with the guest speaker.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Learning Geology

Geology

Dr. Brown spent several years studying geology. His background in engineering gave him a strong grasp of the math and physics involved in geological processes. He found that while geologists are skilled at describing what they see, most don’t pause to figure out the mechanics and the feasibility of their theories. They talk about long periods of time and think that the sheer amount of time glosses over the mechanical difficulties of what they are describing. They don’t concentrate on energy, forces, causes, and effects. But Dr. Brown brought a fresh mindset to his study of geology. He thought as an engineer, a mathematician firmly grounded in physics.

There is also a not-so-subtle arrogance in the entrenched geology establishment. They resent an “outsider intruding in their field. This sounds similar to the criticism that Lord Kelvin received when he waded into the geological age controversy with the geologists of his day. Interestingly, the founders of modern geology, men who have contributed greatly to conventional geological thinking, were not even trained as geologists.10

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Geology

Dr. Brown’s move to Phoenix was a crucial turning point in his life. If he had continued with the seminar work full-time, as he had originally hoped, he wouldn’t have had time to study geology and work on his book. Although his seminars had been useful in getting out the creation message, Dr. Brown’s book has reached a much wider audience.

His book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, more closely resembles an encyclopedia than any other kind of book. Here he summarizes the evidences for creation and explains his hydroplate theory of the flood. Based on this theory, he has found that twenty-five major features of the earth can be explained logically. Scientists who have taken the time to understand the theory have often converted to flood geology, because Dr. Brown gives them a scientifically acceptable approach that is intellectually satisfying. Scientists are struck by diverse problems the hydroplate theory solves.12

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Ahso!]

So you're going to continue to copy/paste the same spew again and again and insist that all the credentials Walt Brown needs is to consider himself smart because he has a couple of hobbies that he's written about? That makes Brown an authority?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1430037 wrote: So you're going to continue to copy/paste the same spew again and again and insist that all the credentials Walt Brown needs is to consider himself smart because he has a couple of hobbies that he's written about? That makes Brown an authority?


He is quite an authority and he also quotes scientists, most of whom believe in evolution, who confirm his conclusions, such as:



Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1430149 wrote: He is quite an authority and he also quotes scientists, most of whom believe in evolution, who confirm his conclusions, such as:



Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:



American journal of science

Astronomical journal

Astrophysics and space science

Astrophysical journal

Bioscience

Geology

Icarus

Journal of Theoretical Biology

Nature

New scientist

Physics Today

Physical review

Physical review d

Physical review letters

Science

Space science reviews

The American Journal of Science and Arts:wah::wah:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1347573

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 3




Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1430621 wrote:

Fossil Gaps 3




Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived. I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]How about the rest of that letter, Pahu, along with Patterson's comments on the obvious misleading interpretation by creationists? Did you omit all that intentionally? Is it not in Brown's book?

[LarsMac]

And, you never did answer my question.

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1430631 wrote: How about the rest of that letter, Pahu, along with Patterson's comments on the obvious misleading interpretation by creationists? Did you omit all that intentionally? Is it not in Brown's book?


Can you show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context?

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1430707 wrote: Can you show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context?Yes! Now answer my question. Why did you omit the letter in it's entirety and Patterson's remarks regarding the misuse of what he wrote?

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1430752 wrote: Yes! Now answer my question. Why did you omit the letter in it's entirety and Patterson's remarks regarding the misuse of what he wrote?


First answer my question: "Can you show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context?"

"Yes" is not an answer. Perhaps I should rephrase: Show us show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context.

[Ahso!]

Pahu;1430844 wrote: First answer my question: "Can you show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context?"

"Yes" is not an answer. Perhaps I should rephrase: Show us show where the rest of the letter changes what is quoted or how the quote changes the meaning of the context."Yes" is an answer! I asked the first question and therefore deserve the first answer. I doubt you knew there was more to the letter you cited.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 4




“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that. Hitching, p. 19. [emphasis in original]

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today. [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

So you're not going to explain to us why you only posted part of Patterson's letter? Were you aware there was more to that letter?

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 5




“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants. George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted. Ibid., p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

So you're not going to explain to us why you only posted part of Patterson's letter? Were you aware there was more to that letter?

[LarsMac]

Probably because that was all that Walt Brown copied.

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 6




“...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates. Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

“Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them. Ibid., p. 266.

“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters, p. 23.

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study. Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.

“New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region. Ibid., p. 12.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould, “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

Ahso!;1431377 wrote: So you're not going to explain to us why you only posted part of Patterson's letter? Were you aware there was more to that letter?Here's what you asked for and won't admit to.

I phoned the British Museum of Natural History and to my delight discovered that Dr. Patterson was still working there. I faxed him the text of the quote and asked him whether my interpretation, the creationist interpretation, or some other interpretation of his words was correct. Here is his reply dated 16 August 1993:

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

So tell us, Pahu, we're you aware of any of this?

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 7




In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:

“But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for “missing links between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory. “Missing, Believed Nonexistent, Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Ahso!;1431802 wrote: Here's what you asked for and won't admit to.



Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'

So tell us, Pahu, we're you aware of any of this?


Yes, but I do not understand why it is a problem. Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were shown in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? ... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

Patterson's clarification does not alter what he said, in my opinion.

[johnmont]

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28Another smoking pile of BS.:yh_rotfl

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 8




Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.

“...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing. David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), “The Gaps in the Fossil Record, Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

“In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing. Goldschmidt, p. 98.

“When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Ibid., p. 97.

“There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla. Katherine G. Field et al., “Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom, Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 9




At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).

b. “The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable. Katrin Henze and William Martin, “Essence of Mitochondria, Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 10




Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).

c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.

“The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue—that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] —although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record. Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.

“The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known... Ibid.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[LarsMac]

You're beginning to repeat yourself.

Or, rather, you're beginning to repeat Walt Brown.

It doesn't really make it more true to say it again.

[Pahu]

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 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]

[Pahu]

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]

[Pahu]

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]

[Ahso!]

Author Ed Suominen explains how evolutionary biology forced him to abandon creationism -- and the church Former Christian fundamentalist: Science robbed me of my faith - Salon.com

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 14




g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists’ own time scale, this “transition occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.



[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411–415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]

It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile’s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218–219 and Pitman, pp. 199–200.]

h. “Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another. Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Ahso!]

Ed Suominen was raised in a small sect of Lutheran Christianity called Laestadianism. Of the 32,000 denominations into which Christianity has fractured, his is one of the more conservative. Members believe in the literal truth of the Bible, including the creation story. They eschew sins like drinking, dancing, watching television, wearing earrings, and playing school sports. They marry only within their own sect and believe God alone should decide how many children they have. Suominen followed the rules; he met and married the right kind of girl, and together they have 11 children.

But Suominen is also an engineer, trained at the University of Washington. He has been a patent agent and an inventor, and eventually his work with electrical and digital systems led him to notice something his church hadn’t taught him about: the power of natural selection. He was trying to optimize a design, when he came across a useful software tool:

Former Christian fundamentalist: Science robbed me of my faith - Salon.com

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 15




i. “The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved. W. E. Swinton, “The Origin of Birds, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.

A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., “Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267–1270.] In that report, “Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm. [Ann Gibbons, “Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood, Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]

Bird and theropod “hands differ. Theropods have “fingers I, II, and III (having lost the “ring finger and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. “The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds. [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, “Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand, Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666–668.] “... this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy. [Richard Hinchliffe, “The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 16




Theropod “arms (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.

“... most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx . Hinchliffe, p. 597.

See “What Was Archaeopteryx? [here ].



Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.

j. “When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural. ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ... William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25–26.

“The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record. A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.

“Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter. Lyall Watson, “The Water People, Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.

k. “At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]