Macro Evolutionists...

[Missileman]

on one side I can point out the designed aspects idea conforms better to what we see sceintically than evolution does.
I can say it scientifically ,without reference to any specific intelligence or God.

ROFLMAO!!! This may be the most hilarious post of the decade. Simply saying it's scientific makes it scientific? My eyes are watering from laughing so hard I can't see the screen to see if I've made any typos.

[revelarts]

...Edited to add a link to a transitional species, not that you won't pooh pooh it.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/07...ossil-reveals/
.

It's hard for me to address the whole article becuse its so full of assumptions. and I've wonder how they come by the dna from the fossil for make the test? OH they didn't they are checking modern fish and mice Okkk my laymans take on the 1st paragraph.

A celebrated missing-link fossil (Assumption, it looks like it should fit so BAM its IT until we find out it's not like we did with Colacanth) found in the Canadian Arctic seven years ago has led scientists to a significant new discovery that the genetic blueprint for arms, legs, fingers and toes existed in prehistoric fish long before some of them evolved into land animals exhibiting such features. (Assumption: they don't have the DNA, but it may have I'll let it slide)

The finding by a team of U.S. researchers, published in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reinforces the reputation of Tiktaalik roseae — a 375-million-year-old fossilized “fishapod” discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 — as an “evolutionary icon” because it symbolizes the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth’s most primitive creatures. (Symbolizes becuase they don't have ANY other real good candidate for the transition)

The researchers said the evident similarities between fish fins and mammal limbs — “particularly the wrist and hand-like compartments present in the fins of Tiktaalik” and other ancient transitional species (Notice that this "transitional" creature to LAND has FINS like a fish and Swims Like a fish guess what it might be?) — “inspired a laboratory experiment (Inspired an experiment Great some real science) to look at the homology, or shared physical and genetic traits, of fish and limbed animals.”

The experiment showed that a genetic “switch” needed to activate the development of limbs in present-day mice was also present in extinct species of fish some 400 million years ago. (Assumption: they don't have the 400 mil year old DNA but I'll let it slide both are fish so no biggie) Not only that, the same patches of DNA traced (traced How, they don't say) to primitive fish could be transplanted from present-day fish into modern mice embryos and successfully trigger limb development.

Likewise, the limb-development genes from mice could be substituted in aquatic species such as zebrafish and skate and trigger the growth of fins. (Sooo the same area on the DNA will make a Limb IF it's in a mouse or fins IF it's in a Fish. Um yeah, sounds like we got similar parts different function, does that prove DECENT? hmm not really. I would not be surprised if similar thing could be done cross many species of vertebrates, we have many similar functions and parts does it PROVE DECENT? no. only similarities.)

tetrapods

As mentioned above the colacath was assumed to be an early tetrapod transition from fish to land creature. until we found one alive an it was STILL claimed to be one and that it walked on the sea floor until scientist admted , well no it just swims with it's 4 tetrapod like limbs. never walked. and similar body style doesn't prove decent. the differences in each type of tetrapod which is specific and narrowlly defined and fine tuned for specific types of locomotion AND unable to interbred etc etc shows there are not just gaps but chasms of distant for the assumptions of evolution to fill. Unless you just take it on faith that similarities Prove decent.

Birds didn't descend form mammals...so, that would be impossible; but that's not really the issue, which is, the mountains of evidence contain literally billions of mutations over millions of years. Most of which are long gone, (why assume that it was there in the 1st place?)the odds of finding every detail are slim to none, so of course some(Most) gaps remain, but the current theory is supported by the evidence which exists and scientists actually seek to disprove their hypothesis, not prove them.(um no they try to prove evolution) Its like going down the road looking for signs you are on the right path; sometimes there are signs the path is the right one, but every step of the way isn't paved, so one must also look for signs they are going the wrong direction. (None assume they are going in the wrong direction though? Any signs that say so must be reinterpreted , like the Cambrian explosion or the Latoli Footprints) Then you go back. (go back? !!! "TO WHAT?" they say "the DARK AGES?") It's a slow process, but what took millions of years to evolve, we have discovered much in a relatively short time.

for example
"..<small>A US Geological Survey team, consisting of Harold Malde, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, and Roald Fryxell, working under a grant from the National Science Foundation, assigned dates of 250,000 year B.P. for these artifacts. These geologists stated that four different dating methods independently yielded an anomalously great age for the artifacts found near Valsequillo. The dating methods used were:

1. uranium series dating
2. fission track dating
3. tephra hydration dating
4. study of mineral weathering

The date of 250,000 years obtained for Hueyatlaco by the US Geological Survey team provoked a great deal of controversy. If accepted, it would have revolutionized not only New World anthropology but the entire picture of human origins, since human beings capable of making the sophisticated tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until about 100,000 years ago in Africa...</small>"
"<small>Excerpt of letter to Marie Wormington from Dr. Cynthia Irwin-Williams [circa 1969]:

"...Meanwhile, I recently got a letter from Hal, with some (completely wild) uranium dates on Valsequillo material. I don't see how he can take them seriously since they conflict with the archaeology, with his own geologic correlations, and with a couple C14 dates. However, God help us, he wants to publish right away! I am enclosing a copy of Hal's letter and my reply. Needless to say any restraint you can exercise on him would be greatly appreciated. All we need to do at this point is to put that stuff in print and every reputable prehistorian in the country will be rolling in the aisles."</small>

<small>On March 30, 1981, Steen-McIntyre wrote to Estella Leopold, the associate editor of Quaternary Research: “The problem as I see it is much bigger than Hueyatlaco. It concerns the manipulation of scientific thought through the suppression of ‘Enigmatic Data,’ data that challenges the prevailing mode of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an anthropologist, I didn’t realize the full significance of our dates back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory of human evolution had become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory, period.”
</small>
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ci...cia_life18.htm

What is your issue with evolution? Is it the scientific process, because evidence is incomplete,
Incomplete and inconclusive
that we came from monkeys,
That's a problem if it's False, yes
or do you just see it as an affront to religion?
Yes, PARTS of it is, not all. As I said before, "Evolution" claims to much in it's broadest sense, as folks like Dawkins and other atheist point out.

B/C in my heart I believe in God, but my mind is forced to question such things as Light to humans in 6 days-- as best i understand, this ability to question and reason is what is meant by man being created in God's image. If He is all-knowing and omnipotent, why bother giving us these abilities and the emplacement of fossil records which aren't congruent with intelligent design-- He just toying with our inquisitive nature?

Why?????????

He gave us reason to look at all of the evidence and see what's not congruent with evolution as well, if we are open minded enough to allow that it could be wrong. but the scientific community is only in the past decade or so started looking seriously at alternative views and concultions of the facts and allow some of the new and some suppressed information to rise to the surface.



I recomend to you a few books.
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson


Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson
and Signiture in the cell by Stephen Meyer The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions by David Berlinski




the 1st book deals kind of walks you into some of the philospospcal assumtions them talks about some of the evidentury problems of evlution and some of the insider debate within the scientic community. to most of us lay people we'd assume that evolition is monolithcal accepted in all respects across the board when that not the case.

the 2nd book documents many truly incredble achological finds that blow the doors of of the currnet portraly of evoltionaly history and tree. mainly presenting scientist who over the last hundred years have found and wirtten and sudstantied fossil finds of homospapain that go back 800000 to millions yep millions of years. And documents the treatment of many of the respected scientist who try to get this information presented. and also talks about how some of the most revered fossils claims are in question in acedimia.

Signiture in the cell basically in thick deatil makes a case based on the same critriea Darwin used that the CODE in the cell demands that it was designed. that it's the best explaination just as if you find a book on the beach you don't assume it was made but erosion of natral processes.

Berlinski is just a great read

...If you have ANY scientifically verifiable evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, post it. I'll personally guarantee you receive a million dollars if they don't present you a check with your Nobel prize.

I showed one to you a while back but you didn't accept it, you denied that the sciencist thought the find was credible. I'll post it again but I won't hold my breath for my money.



Most people have heard of "our ancestor" Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, she's suppose to be around 3 MILLION years old found in Africa right?
OK
Have you ever heard of the Laetoli Footprints , also about 3 MILLION years old also found in Africa. Amazingly preserved in soft wet cool volcanic ash which quickly hardened like cement. The funny thing about these footprints is that they look like normal human foot prints. But becuase man "was not there 3 MILLION years ago" of cousre these where of some one in Lucy's family right?
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis
Originally Posted by wiki
Australopithecus afarensis... anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation. The curvature of the finger and toe bones (Phalanges) approaches that of modern-day apes, and is most likely reflective of their ability to efficiently grasp branches and climb...




Soo the footprints look like that right .. with curved toes ?
NOPE!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html
Originally Posted by PBS evolution library
...The prints, say experts on hominid body structure, are strikingly different from those of a chimpanzee, and in fact are hardly distinguishable from those of modern humans....



Many experts say they are completely indistinguishable from modern humans.
Seems to me any scientist would have to conclude, from the evidence, that Modern Humans lived 3MILLION years ago.





http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_03.html

and one of the next logical questions is, IF there where already modern humans 3 million years ago then when did modern humans really appear on earth?
to start...


the Video on the PBS page? At about 2:55 the expert says that the footprint is "virtually indistinguishable from a modern human footprint" before that he compares it to a chimpanzee print and point out the vast difference. the chimpanzee footprint looks like the Lucy foot Missle. No Arch and long thumb for a big toe.

Other experts footprint expert, Louise Robbins of university of North Carolina call to the original Laetoli team. R.H Tuttle another expert. And Even Mary Leakey who regarded Laetoli as representing humans rather than apes.

Here's an audio excerpt from the book Forbidden Archeology. With Quotes from Leaky, Robbins, Tuttle an White.
http://mynetbox.info/audio/Laetoli-Footprints-3mil.mp3

You could download and listen to the book here Audible.com Forbidden Archeology
the book at amazon


Russell H. Tuttle Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago:
"A small barefoot Homo sapiens could have made them. . . . In all discernible morphological features, the feet of the individuals that made the trails are indistinguishable from those of modern humans."
New Scientist, Vol. 98, 1983, p. 373.


and
"In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that there were made by a member of our genus Homo. . . . In any case, we should shelve the loose assumption that the Laetoli footprints were made by Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis."
Russell H. Tuttle, Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64




Tim White, who asserts that they are afarensis also says
"Make no mistake about it, . . . They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn't be able to ell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you."
D. Johanson & M. A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 250.





and here's a youtbe
Ireducable design


debate ID and Evolution

[Missileman]

you say that its gradual. well what does a slug do with 1/2000th of an eye?

Obviously a question that points to a lack of design.

[revelarts]

Obviously a question that points to a lack of design.

your not answering the question. You claim there has to be 1/2000th of an eye. I don't. I say an animal gets an eye fully formed or a light sensor fully designed from the begining. there are no transitional eyes. gradual Evolution ASSUMES that there were, way back in the olden days when we weren't around and can find out now... "BUT THEY WERE THERE, becuase evolution says so it."

Mountians of assumptions.

Are you going to answer the question?

[PostmodernProphet]

Are you saying we should abandon modern medicine so maybe we can develop a resistance via the evolutionary process? I'm not entirely clear what you are getting at.

not even close.....you raised the argument that dying does not promote evolution......I put it to you that evolution involves lots of dying....for evey successful mutation that survives to pass on it's genes there are thousands, probably millions, that do not.....cancerous cells are examples of mutations that do not, but the structure of our cells, the permission to mutate, is the essence of the process that results in the single success as well as the tens of thousands of failures.....

[Missileman]

your not answering the question. You claim there has to be 1/2000th of an eye. I don't. I say an animal gets an eye fully formed or a light sensor fully designed from the begining. there are no transitional eyes. gradual Evolution ASSUMES that there were, way back in the olden days when we weren't around and can find out now... "BUT THEY WERE THERE, becuase evolution says so it."

Mountians of assumptions.

Are you going to answer the question?

I made no such claim. There are many creatures with rudimentary sight, in some cases limited to the ability to only sense light and dark. That creatures with eyes evolved over time from a creature with rudimentary sight, which we already know REALLY DO EXIST is no more an assumption than an arm evolving from a flipper or in the case of whales, vice versa.

[PostmodernProphet]

is no more an assumption than an arm evolving from a flipper or in the case of whales, vice versa.

/grins......

[darin]

this thread has a lot of good info; thanks smart folks.

[logroller]

we have many similar functions and parts does it PROVE DECENT? no. only similarities.)...Unless you just take it on faith that similarities Prove decent.

Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.


I'll take a look at what you've posted, but honestly, I'm swamped with reading right now. I literally have thousands of pages to read over the next two months, from safety standards to native american peoples to the philosophy of professional ethics-- its not likely evolution will fit into the reading queue. However, let me address the footprints. Walking upright with feet doesn't make someone human anymore than communicating with vocal chords does. Its an interesting find, and certainly presents sufficient evidence to challenge modern theories of human evolution; but in no way is it cause to scrap the other humanoid finds as anomalous or without foundation. There's debate over how humans settled North America, when and how etc. But to dispatch associated theories as little more than faith-based is disingenuous to the objectively rational processes and careful consideration of those who develop them.

Of course there a problems with evolution, or holes whatever; its not perfect. But is God?
Man is imperfect, so it follows he cannot create anything which is perfect. If we, an imperfect creation, were created by God, then how could it be assumed He is perfect? Just saying man, if you tear down everything because its not perfect, we'd be left with nothing. Gotta take this beautiful world as it is, and not as we would have it. That's not faith, that's function. If God works for you, great. If another man thinks evolution is the path to understanding, very well. Good for him, good for you; but neither one of you will ever be PROVEN correct. So let's stop that charade of positive proof; it doesn't exist without some degree of assumption. The degree of assumption, however, is subject to scrutiny. But I find God, or the ID theory, involves far more assumptions than any scientific theory.

[PostmodernProphet]

[/COLOR]
Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.

that's really going to mess up those who think science had definitely proven that all species have evolved from a single source........

[revelarts]

[/COLOR]
Its descent, not decent;; but aside from that, science seeks to disprove a hypothesis formed of observations, proposing/ suggesting a likely cause and/or result. By its very nature, science only proves things wrong, not correct. So of course you'll find contradictory evidence, that's what science seeks-- to disprove, not PROVE.


I'll take a look at what you've posted, but honestly, I'm swamped with reading right now. I literally have thousands of pages to read over the next two months, from safety standards to native American peoples to the philosophy of professional ethics-- its not likely evolution will fit into the reading queue. However, let me address the footprints. Walking upright with feet doesn't make someone human anymore than communicating with vocal chords does. Its an interesting find, and certainly presents sufficient evidence to challenge modern theories of human evolution; but in no way is it cause to scrap the other humanoid finds as anomalous or without foundation. There's debate over how humans settled North America, when and how etc. But to dispatch associated theories as little more than faith-based is disingenuous to the objectively rational processes and careful consideration of those who develop them.

Of course there a problems with evolution, or holes whatever; its not perfect. But is God?
Man is imperfect, so it follows he cannot create anything which is perfect. If we, an imperfect creation, were created by God, then how could it be assumed He is perfect? Just saying man, if you tear down everything because its not perfect, we'd be left with nothing. Gotta take this beautiful world as it is, and not as we would have it. That's not faith, that's function. If God works for you, great. If another man thinks evolution is the path to understanding, very well. Good for him, good for you; but neither one of you will ever be PROVEN correct. So let's stop that charade of positive proof; it doesn't exist without some degree of assumption. The degree of assumption, however, is subject to scrutiny. But I find God, or the ID theory, involves far more assumptions than any scientific theory.

yes, my spelling is not not decent. The secretaries on my job love that. brings them a lot of laughs. I admit it's pretty laughable.
But glad you got my points.
ANd I understand not being able to get to the reading, it's out there if you want to explorer and I ending up getting Darwin on trail as an audio book from audible.com
And sure, everyone has to go there own path, however evolution is the default for modern science and i think that it hasn't earned it's place. I mean i was raised in public schools and PBS and animals shows and Carl Sagans cosmos, so evolution was assumed in my mind without ANY known scientific challenge. then i started to here about questions and i laughed but listened and read and well what do you know the emperor has no clothes. well he's got some clothes like nice underwear, gloves, socks and a crown. But i guess one of main issues is that evolution was given this High place where it's assumed corrected until proven not 100 years ago when Darwin himself said that there was little evidence for it and today there's been only a little that has changed however the theory is assume sound no matter what data is presented to knock out various -just so stories- that are taught as THE way this or that happened.
for instance as mentioned above the story goes that man became Bipal BECUASE we left the trees blah bah around 800000 yrs ago but the Latoli foot prints apparently show 3 million year ago there were bipedal creatures of some kind. posbily humans? So the story we've been told in wrong the dates are wrong and the reason for bipedal mutation is wrong and possibly the desent from the Australopithecus is wrong. but we were taught that it was all TRUE not to questions Unless your a fanatic, or Ignoramus. I don't have a problem with science just with the arrogance of assumed knowledge from sparse info.
you mentioned yourself and scientist admit that IF evolution occurred MOST of the evidence is NOT available. if it NOT available we have Little right to assume to fill it with dogma that doesn't allow you question it outright. there are more gaps than there are filled spots.
In the discipline of species classification called Cladism there are a group of scientist who refuse to classify fossils and ancient creatures by their supposed Descent becuase of the lack of clear data in that respect and the history of changing opinion in that area. They see no truly scientific way to do it so they focus on the forms and body styles to group creatures in relationships by clear patterns not by assumed descent. they are called pattern cladist. Seem reasonable, but instead of being thought of as clear headed good scientist many have been attacked becuase they are not playing the "we KNOW this came FROM that" game, to some scientists minds it's nigh on evolutionary blasphemy.

...One line of scientific reasoning that points to a Creator is the intricate design found in all living organisms. This is known as the teleological argument. William Paley presented one of the most famous versions of this argument—that of the watch and the watchmaker.1 Since the nineteenth century, however, it has been widely believed that Paley’s argument for a universal Designer was effectively answered by the philosopher David Hume. Hume claimed that Paley’s analogy between living things and machines was unfounded and unrealistic in that life does not need an intelligent designer as machines do. 

In addition to his philosophical argument, Hume advanced a theory of natural selection similar to Darwin’s, which he claimed could account for the apparent design seen in nature. Atheist Richard Dawkins writes in The Blind Watchmaker, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”2 Dawkins goes on to explain that there is no need to postulate God as the Designer since natural selection can perform the miracles. 

However, in spite of Dawkins’ claims, scientists can no longer ignore the idea of design. Recent discoveries reveal that life is indeed analogous to the most complex machinery, thereby reinforcing Paley’s argument. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, states, “Paley was not only right in asserting the existence of an analogy between life and machines, but was also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man.”3 ...
Science is re-learning an old lesson: the more we uncover details about the universe and living organisms, the more we discover design. Many notable scientists inadvertently support Paley’s arguments as they describe the design in nature revealed to them through science. Physicist Paul Davies, who does not profess to be a Christian, supports teleology—and ultimately creationism—when he says, “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to reveal yet another facet of order.”4
And Robert Jastrow, an agnostic, shook up his fellow scientists when he said, “The Anthropic principle is the most interesting development next to the proof of the creation, and it is even more interesting because it seems to say that science itself has proven, as a hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It is a very theistic result.”6

Robert Jastrow, “A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982, quoted in Geisler, Systematic Theology, 2:591. Clearly, the Humanist has no patience with the Anthropic Principle, which states that the world was tailored for our existence. For an excellent defense of this principle, see Roy Abraham Varghese, ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Dallas, TX: Lewis and Stanley, 1984), 102ff.

here are some quotes about Imagination assumption and preconception of evolution





"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."
Fix, William R. in The Bone Peddlers. Macmillan, New York, NY (1984), p.150.


"Botanists construct as best they can an imaginary picture of the missing links, so as to complete the sequence of steps in the evolution of the plant kingdom . Obviously such a practice is mainly guesswork, but, like many such hypotheses, has been very useful in organizing subject matter and stimulating research...the record of the rocks reveals practically nothing of the earlier chapters in the evolution of the plant kingdom. For these, therefore, we must rely upon the types of plants still in existence, plus a liberal measure of scientific imagination."
Coulter M. C. in The Nature of the World and of Man. H. H. Newman, Garden City, NY (0), p.216.



"The models we consider are of three sorts: those that extrapolate processes of speciation to account for higher taxa via divergence, those that invoke selection among species, and those that emphasize that many higher taxa originated as novel lineages in their own right, not only as a consequence of species-level processes. It is in this latter class of model that we believe the record favors." "... many of the large populations should have been preserved, yet we simply do not find them. Small populations are called for, then, but there are difficulties here also. The populations must remain small (and undetected) and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum (or class). This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are. We might imagine vast arrays of such small populations fanning continually and incessantly into adaptive space. Vast arrays should have produced at least some fossil remains also. Perhaps an even greater difficulty is the requirement that these arrays of lineages change along a rather straight and true course --- morphological side trips or detours of any frequency should lengthen the time of origin of higher taxa beyond what appears to be available. Why should an opportunistic, tinkering process set on such a course and hold it for so long successfully among so many lineages?"
Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. in "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record" in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Raff, Rudolf A. and Elizabeth C. Raff, ed. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY (1985), p.71.


"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."
Gould, Stephen Jay i,l. (1982), p.140.

"Since we hardly know anything about the major types of organization, suggestions, and suggestions only, can be made. How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of organization, if one relies entirely upon imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Vertebrata. The lack of concrete evidence relative to the "heyday" of evolution seriously impairs any transformist theory. In any case, a shadow is cast over the genesis of the fundamental structural plans and we are unable to eliminate it."
Grasse, Pierre in "Chapter I: From the Simple to the Complex--Progressive Evolution, Regressive Evolution" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.17.


"Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even turn out to be right."
Jones, Steve in The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future. Flamingo, London, (1994), p.196.


""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 orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...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.""
Simpson, George Gaylord in "Chapter III: Micro-Evolution, Macro-Evolution, and Mega-Evolution" in Tempo and Mode in Evolution, L. C. Dunn, ed. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., New York and London, NY (1965), Reprint, p.106,107.

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
Rensberger, Boyce in How the World Works. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY (1986), p.1718.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
Takahata. 1995. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. …


"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors"
Rensberger, Boyce. 1981, in Science…

"It is, however, when we come to consider the actual course or lineage in the subsequent diversification of organisms...that we meet with disappointment and frustration if we rigorously distinguish between evidence and speculation...At this time there are no known living or fossil forms which unequivocally link any two of the proposed divisions."
Bold, Harold C. in Morphology of Plants. Harper & Row, (1967), p.515.

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."
Feducia, Alan in "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers" in The Beginning of Birds. Jura Museum, Eichstatt, West Germany (1985), p.76.


One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.

Darwin not only had a racially biased view of the non-Aryan races, he even held other Europeans who were not of English descent with contempt. Here is his opinion of the Irish, taken from his Descent of Man:
"A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."(Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times: Natural selection as affecting civilised nations.)
Darwin quoted Greg here in referring to his Irish neighbors as degraded members of society.
He also wrote that the western nations of Europe owed none of their "superiority" to Greek ancestry: "The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks", to whom he referred in a quote from Greg as "'corrupt to the very core.'" (Descent, ibid.)
Darwin shared with us his evolutionary viewpoint on what happens to more primitive cultures when encountering more "advanced" (i.e. European) cultures in Chapter Seven of the Descent, On the Races of Man: On the Extinction of the Races of Man: "The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
Darwin also stated that the wealthy nations would eventually replace the less privileged races in the struggle for life, and it is apparent that he believed this to be a good thing:
"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."(Ibid)

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."
Huxley, Aldous in Ends and Means. (0), p.270.


"What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution," but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error."
Johnson, P.E. October 24, 1994. Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin in Christianity Today, 38(12).


Prove it wrong is the standard? er hmm Ok.

6 days, prove me wrong.

[pete311]

One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.

I'm not defending "Darwinism", I'm defending the Modern Theory or Evolution.

btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago. Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources.

[PostmodernProphet]

btw, get some quotes that are little more recent than 30+ years ago. Also it's very easy to cherry pick quotes from crackpot books (anyone can publish a book), that is why peer reviewed journals are so important as sources.

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........

[darin]

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........

What he MEANS is "Go read a Book that agrees with my opinion"...

[pete311]

lol, this from a guy who's typical response is "go read a book"........

What he MEANS is "Go read a Book that agrees with my opinion"...

A peer reviewed book, like a college textbook. Why is that an unreasonable demand?