21

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 21/03/2009 01:55:03 »

I think you've got it wrong about fossils. They are formed under fairly special conditions and not be some zealous zoologist collector. The data is far from complete, as you might expect.
Btw, what data do you have for your theory?

Try and get this Sophie. It's really not too difficult to follow.

Darwin's idea of the incompleteness of the fossil record was complete nonsense. There are so many fossils available today, that argument is a complete non-starter.

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. (He says a similar thing on p. 50.)

http://evolution-facts.org/New-material/Cambrian%20Explosion.pdf

As Darwin himself wrote, before the different phyla appeared there must have been "vast periods" during which "the world swarmed with living creatures" (Excerpt A, p. 83). In the fossil record, however, most of the major animal phyla appear fully formed at the beginning of the geological period known as the Cambrian, with no fossil evidence that they branched off from a common ancestor. Darwin was aware of this, acknowledging in The Origin of Species that "several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks." He called this a "serious" problem which "at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views
here entertained" (Excerpt A, pp. 82, 85).
(A) Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (New York: D,
Appleton, 1890), Chapter X.

What significance does the Cambrian explosion have for evaluating Darwin's theory that all animals are modified descendants of a common ancestor? As we have seen, Darwin himself considered it a serious problem (Excerpt A). Although Darwin's theory predicts that animal evolution should proceed from the "bottom up," with the largest differences emerging last, James Valentine and his colleagues wrote in 1991 that
the pattern of the Cambrian explosion "creates the impression that metazoan evolution has by and large proceeded from the 'top down' " (Excerpt B, p. 294).

Harry Whittington,an expert on the Cambrian fossils from the Burgess shale, wrote in 1985:

"It may well be that metazoan animals arose independently in different areas. I look sceptically upon diagrams that show the branching diversity of animal life through time, and come down at the base to a single kind of animal" (Excerpt F, p. 131).

Evolutionary biologist Jeffrey Levinton, though convinced of the common ancestry of animals, acknowledged in 1992 that the Cambrian explosion -- "life's big bang," as he called it -- remains "evolutionary biology's deepest paradox" (Excerpt G, p. 84). Although "the body plans that evolved in the Cambrian by and large served as the blueprints for those seen today,"

Levinton saw "no reason to think that the rate of evolution was ever slower or faster than it is now. Yet that conclusion still leaves unanswered the paradox posed by the Cambrian explosion and the mysterious persistence of those ancient body plans" (Excerpt G, pp. 84, 90).

In 1999,University of California biologist Malcolm Gordon wrote: "Recent research results make it seem improbable that there could have been single basal forms for many of the highest categories of evolutionary differentiation (kingdoms, phyla, classes)" (Excerpt H, p. 331).

Gordon concluded: "The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms [i.e., plants, animals, fungi, bacteria] as presently recognized.
It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla" (Excerpt H, p. 335).

References

(F) Harry B. Whittington, The Burgess Shale (New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press, 1985).
(G) Jeffrey S. Levinton, "The Big Bang of Animal Evolution," Scientific
American 267 (November, 1992): 84-91.
(H) Malcolm S. Gordon, "The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,"
Biology and Philosophy 14 (1999): 331-348.

That enough, or do you really need more quotes to establish the point that the idea of a branching tree of life is a complete myth?
 

22

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How are migrating birds so punctual?

« on: 20/03/2009 16:54:00 »

Hi Janean

You might like to have a look at the topic 'How does Instinct Evolve' here:http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=16535

I'm afraid the supporters of evolution on this site have no answers to your question.

Mine is quite simple: the Lord God made them so.

Gen 1.20 ¶  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21  And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

After all, it takes intelligence to design a clock, and a calendar, and combine them with a GPS navigating system, not to mention the ability to fly, and to fly 7,500 miles and back every year.

As far as I can make out, no bird has ever created such a complex series of interacting systems, or is ever likely to do so. So Who did?

23

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 19/03/2009 23:10:02 »

Time pressure is now easing, so I'll have a go at answering your questions, Ben rather sooner than later, and I apologise for the delay.

Seeker,

Thank you for this reasonable and reasoned post. We may not agree, but we can at least be rational about our discussions, as you have pointed out the way.

Up till now I hadn't encountered the co-dominance phenomenon (where red x white --> pink). But the very fact that a whole paper has to be devoted to a relatively small number of examples shows how unusual a thing it is.

I accept your correction.

24

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 19/03/2009 19:58:29 »

"What I DON'T detect is any semblance of an answer to the point."
Allow me to reiterate it for you
"Bearing in mind that Science advances as knowledge increases, what's your beef with poor old Charles? Didn't he, in fact, do quite well?".

The reason he got it "wrong" was that he was working with a rather incomplete data set.

Well, the data is now pretty complete, in fact it is embarrassingly so, because zillions of specimens are waiting to be catalogued. Here's Olsen:

After a century of further searching and examination of the fossil record, many paleontologists are beginning to believe that the fossil record is complete since none of the gaps in the fossil record that existed in Darwin's time has been filled by subsequent study. E.C. Olson observes,

"A third fundamental aspect of the record is somewhat different. Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors .... This aspect of the record is real, not merely the result of faulty or biased collecting. A satisfactory theory of evolution must take it into consideration and provide an explanation."

I've yet to see an 'explanation'! Got one? Or two, or....?

25

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 19/03/2009 19:52:00 »

OK, fine, I give up. I am now a convert to creationism. We were all created by God, as the Bible tells us, around 6000 years ago.

The Bible says nothing of the sort. Usher said so, but as far as I'm concerned that's tripe.

26

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 19/03/2009 19:49:52 »

Go on, ask me a question.

Answer: God did it.

Go on, ask me another question.

Answer: God did it.

Another?

Answer: God did it.

God did it.

God did it.

God did it.

God did it.

God did it.

God did it.

It's a safe life, but Jesus it must be boring.

Um, what's your comment/ answer to the palaeontology quote I made?

I know - anything but God did it!

I got that right?

27

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 19/03/2009 19:47:28 »

OK, fine, I give up. I am now a convert to creationism. We were all created by God, as the Bible tells us, around 6000 years ago.

I have no idea how those damned Egyptians managed to formulate society 7000 years ago and what the devil were dinosaurs doing 100 million years ago? But of course, how silly of me, it was a miracle!!!

Do you detect an air of sarcasm here?

Yeh, I do.

What I DON'T detect is any semblance of an answer to the point.

28

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

« on: 18/03/2009 14:07:20 »

Alas, Darwin, and his followers are all up a tree with no way down.

How come?

Because there are zillions of new species, families, phyla right there in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum with any really significant amounts of fossils.

Darwin's tree should be lying on its side, not growing up!

Here's a nice reference for you all:

Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

Note the word 'explosion'! Right up the evolutionist's trouserlegs. []

29

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Is coconut oil high in saturated fats?

« on: 07/02/2009 00:08:22 »

It's a most remarkable oil.

Here's an article about its amazingly long list of health-giving properties.http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/

The government of the Philippines is right to promulgate the use of coconut oil.

30

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Evolution Disclaimer Proposed for Mississippi Textbooks

« on: 06/02/2009 00:20:55 »

I'm a-comin' back soon guys. Careful what you say.

Luv

Asyncritus

31

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 01/02/2009 21:49:48 »

Hi everybody, I'm back!

Now, please restrain your applause and general bonhomie.

I'm afraid I've been rather taken up with constructing a website, and haven't had as much time as I would have liked free.

If you'd like to see the results of the endeavour, as it evolved (heh heh!) over the last week or so, go here:

That link is a blatant bit of advertising. How could you, Asyncritus? I thought you were better than that. MOD


I would appreciate anyone linking to the site on their webs.

But I'll be back shortly to reply to Ben's points which are indeed worthy of attention.

Asyncritus

32

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 20/01/2009 00:10:31 »

You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

As I said, Ben, my purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a scientific farce. One has to clear the ground before building any edifices.

Would I be correct to say that you have agreed that there are vast lacunae in the theory and its powers of explanation of the scientific facts I have brought forth?

And that given those lacunae, you will be searching for some other explanations? I think you are the fairest minded of the writers in this thread, and have not totally allowed prejudice to blind you to the faults.

I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

Ben, as this is a science forum, I am reluctant to enter into this discussion. Not that I am reluctant to give my reasons, but I have no doubt that a torrent of abuse will follow, mainly along the theme of 'this is a science forum, so why don't you shuddup'?

This thread is the scientific part of the debate, and therefore I have no reluctance in caning evolution here. As I suggested to fbi, we will need another thread to do justice to the existence of God, the evidence for the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and the evidence of prophecy as proof that there is One who sees, guides and directs the future.

If any of those is provable, and they are, then I wonder what you will do?

You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

They are decidedly not of the same validity. I gave a link above to the creation myths of the world, and invite you to have a look at them.

Then have a careful look at Genesis 1 and see the difference. There is nothing mythological there. It is clear, level-headed and the record of palaeontology indicates considerable support for the order in which life appeared on the earth.

Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

I believe that the cases I have brought forth are incredible proofs of Design ingenuity. In no form or fashion could unintelligence or chance have entered into the construction of the bat's echolocation system, for instance, or the existence of meiosis and mitosis. They are splendid examples of intelligence at work, as is the unbelievably brilliant invention of the DNA molecule to produce reproduction.

I cannot fail to see intelligence in the construction, and if there is, then how does one account for its existence without postulating a greater intelligence to devise these devices?

Just as our brains have produced computers - and therefore our brains are superior to computers. Similarly, the Intelligence that produced our intelligences, MUST be greater than ours. But ours is phenomenal - therefore the Designer's must be immeasurably so.

And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

I think you're asking if I could ever stop believing God, for whatever reason. I don't believe I could. There are just too many OTHER evidences, including my own personal, subjective knowledge - which creates in me a positive and deep love for the Divine, despite my own many failures, which prove positively that I am not divine. It's hard to say that, especially in public, but I'm afraid it's true, and as an honest man, I must admit the truth.

You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?

To be perfectly honest, I am more than a little surprised at the numbers. I don't know why they come - perhaps it's to see me being pulverised. In which case they must be sorely disappointed!

But I hope they are seeing that there ARE serious problems with evolution, and that maybe, just maybe, one or 2 are beginning to think differently about the subject. I hope so, anyway.

33

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 19/01/2009 22:14:19 »

You refuse to elucidate on your model - you have argued with the existing scientific model, and then offered "A man did it" as an alternative - this is not you offering an alternative model.  As there is no evidence for "the man", and no mechanism through which "the man did it", then we can safely put your suggestion in the 'things that don't make any sense at all' category.

I think it's become very clear to everyone reading this thread that you are too narrow minded to look outside your own religion for an explanation, yet are unwilling to explain yourself or elucidate the mechanism.

I highly suspect you will refuse to answer these questions, but:

You've told us you have evidence that the bible ( an old book written by men) is the word of god - please supply that evidence. (You will need to include all the evidence for the existence of god as well, as I fail to see how a book can be written by something that doesn't exist)

You've also told us that you can eliminate evolution and therefore arrive at the Christian creation myth - please explain why you can abandon all the other creation myths, which are of equal validity to the Christian one.

Please supply any positive evidence for creation - examples where you cannot understand how they could evolve do not count.

And finally, I asked you if you would accept an alternative scientific method, if one were discovered and strongly evinced, that was not evolution, but still did not involve a god/gods.  Kindly tell us, honestly, if you would have a problem with a scientific discovery that proves that creation didn't happen.

You have mentioned a number of times the amount of people reading this thread - do you think they won't notice that you refuse to answer these questions?
[/quote]

34

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 18/01/2009 14:45:32 »

Monika
Did you read the article STEFAN quoted - not me? I merely quoted the bits he didn't read: probably couldn't. The author of THAT article doesn't believe the rubbish theories. I don't see why I should, and neither should you!

Sophie

If the conditions are so rare, then how come there are so many millions of them?

"These vast beds of sedimentary fossil-bearing strata cover about three-fourths of the earth’ surface, and are as much as 40,000 feet thick."

I don't want to embarrass you, but the white cliffs of Dover are all fossilised exoskeletons. And there's an area in the Pacific ocean which is about 1000 miles square and about 1 mile deep, which is all fossil calcareous skeletons.

Heh heh heh!

35

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 17/01/2009 19:44:32 »

Does any sense get past your god-lenses? Or do you just ignore information that contradicts your world view?

We've told you repeatedly that living fossils do not threaten evolution.

They don't? You mean, the fact that they DIDN'T evolve is proof that they DID evolve? Heh heh heh!

Hadn't you better get some training in common sense?

And you must be extremely ignorant, incapable of using Google, a liar, or all 3, to say that "Nobody has the faintest clue about how the Angiosperms evolved". There are multiple hypotheses that attempt to understand Angiosperm evolution, and a lot is already known. The more they are studied, the better the understanding becomes.
http://www.gigantopteroid.org/html/angiosperm.htm

Did you read the article? Obviously not. Here's what he said:

"Controversial assertions abound in the scientific literature of the 20th century and three categories of credible hypotheses and theories exist (Rothwell et al. 2009). None of these ideas when taken as a whole are either compelling or plausible to many scientists, including the author".

Meaning, he didn't believe them either. Heh heh heh.

And just in case you missed it, he says:

"Despite a concerted effort by evolutionary-developmental biologists and paleontologists the origin of angiosperms remains enigmatic and mysterious (Frohlich and Chase 2007). Further, certain paleobotanists regard the problem of flowering plant origins, "as intractable a mystery today as it was to Darwin 130 years ago"[/u] (page 318, Rothwell et al. 2009).

And stop spewing rubbish about the evolution of phyla. The only sense in which "There is not a single shred of evidence" is in your mind, where genetic and developmental evidence don't count.

"An estimated 50 to 100 phyla appear explosively at the base of the Cambrian. Fossil evidence suggesting their common ancestry is not found in Precambrian rocks. A General Theory of Macrostasis is needed to explain the fossil data and the stability of the higher taxa."http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/origins/GRAPHICS-CAPTIONS/sub2.html

The only person ignoring the facts here is you.

Really? What about those guys I quoted above? They ignoring facts too? You'd better write to their universities and complain!

Maybe you'd like to hear the great prophet Dawkins on the subject?

""Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." (Dawkins, Richard [zoologist and Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford University], "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.229)..

Heh heh heh!!!

Don't worry Stef old man. You're in good company with the other ignoramuses on this subject - like Dawkins above. He dunno either!!!

You have no argument to make. Stop wasting forum posts.

Come come Stefan. Can't stand a bit of healthy opposition? Good for the soul you know!

36

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 17/01/2009 19:21:25 »

Sophie

Have you EVER checked with the palaeontologists to hear what they have to say about the fossil evidence for evolution? Ever? Please answer this question directly, and quote what evidence you've seen there is for the evolution of ANY phylum. ANY one you like.

When you've done, you need to read G G Simpson who said:

"This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed...

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 classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is true of the classes, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.
•   Simpson, G. G. (1944)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution
Columbia University Press, New York, p. 105, 107

Heh heh heh!

So Simpson wasn't a scientist too, and unqualified to express an opinion? Wiki:
 
George Gaylord Simpson
Born    June 16, 1902
Died    October 6, 1984
Nationality    American
Fields    paleontology
Institutions    Columbia University
Notable awards    Linnean Society of London's Darwin-Wallace Medal in 1958.

George Gaylord Simpson (June 16, 1902 – October 6, 1984) was an American paleontologist. He was an expert on extinct mammals and their intercontinental migrations. Simpson was the most influential paleontologist of the twentieth century and a major participant in the Modern synthesis, contributing Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) and Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals (1945).

Heh heh heh!

37

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 17/01/2009 10:24:48 »

I don't understand this Sophie.

Don't you get the simple fact that if there are 20,000 species that haven't evolved, that's a pretty clear indication the evolution DIDN'T HAPPEN?

But it isn't 20,000. There is not a single shred of evidence of the evolution of ANY of the major animal phyla. In the plant kingdom the situation is even worse.

Nobody has the faintest clue about how the Angiosperms evolved - and that's about half the plants on the planet. Darwin called their evolution 'that abominable mystery' - and nothing's changed since his day.

When are you going to wake up to these FACTS? Why do you keep rejecting them and refusing to face them?

38

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 16/01/2009 18:46:55 »

As I said, there are only 2 possible models available to us:

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

I've never heard of any other that makes any sense at all.

You must remember that to someone who does not believe in god, creation falls into the category of 'things that don't make any sense at all'.

Creation is not a scientific alternative, so if we are looking for a scientific explanation, then your options leave us only evolution.

Please, if you feel creation is a science, supply some positive evidence - there isn't any, of course, as it's theistic construction and not a scientific hypothesis, so I wish you luck.

Do remember that there's a difference between 'two models' and 'things that don't make any sense at all.'

I proposed 2 models, and there is a clear divide there. Only one can be correct. If evolution is as absurd as I'm showing, then you clearly have to stick with the absurdity, or abandon it in favour of the other alternative, as I have done.

39

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 16/01/2009 18:43:15 »

Which creation myth?  I like the aboriginal ones.  They are equally as valid as the Christian ones.

There can only be one that is correct. As you may or may not know, there is a huge array of fables and nonsense stories. Here is a collection. You're welcome to take your pick.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=collection+of+creation+myths&meta=&btnG=Google+Search

40

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / How does "instinct" evolve?

« on: 16/01/2009 18:09:45 »

"...and that  there is no evidence that 'modern' species existed 100 million years ago?"

Wrong again, I see. Heh heh.

The reason why we don't find 'ancestors' of the modern species is simply because THERE AREN'T ANY - certainly not at family level and above.

Yahya has 83 PAGES of fossils that haven't changed one bit since forever ago.

Do have a look and let me know what you think AFTER you have had a look.

I am not painting any model because as I've said before, my function is to show that evolution cannot have occurred for any number of excellent scientific reasons.

As I said, there are only 2 possible models available to us:

1 Evolution

2 Creation.

I've never heard of any other that makes any sense at all.

The reductio ad absurdum is the type of argument I am using. I have shown that evolution is absurd at many different levels, and therefore, as Sherlock Holmes said, when we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must be the truth.

I'm sure you've felt the force of many of the facts, the evidence I have adduced, and you know that there isn't a hope of evolution ever explaining any of them.

The theory is therefore absurd and must be dismissed. The 'whatever remains' is Creation. In your collective eyes this is IMPROBABLE, but since it is the only theory left standing, then it must be the truth.

I personally see no alternative, but you clearly do not agree. Why is that, I wonder. Could blind prejudice be playing a major part here?