|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
The most important part that you missed in your quote was this. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, palaeontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved. The point is the word "rather". What the author says is: "In stead that they attacked the evo theory, they SILENTLY agreed that the fossil record was too poor to do anything but IN A GENERAL SORT OF WAY, supporting that evolution had happened.: So they didn't dare to stand up and tell the truth, but instead they half heatedly vaguely mumbled something about evolution, because if they would not have, their careers and jobs would have been on the line. More accurately; they would have been history. About this Eldredge said:"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44 I repeat: We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years. And that is what the addition of that quote refers to, namely that the paleontologists should have stand up and challenged the evo theory, instead of mumbling that the fossile record somehow supported evolution. So back to the quote. Here is my quote, with in green the addition:
The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved. So the first addition: "The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record." simply strengthens my point, it says that the fossile record shows that the species are individually distinct, and not a part of a unity that morphes into different species. So that only strengthens my quote, and in no way alters the meaning of it, or shows that the opposite is meant of what I claim. Second addition: "Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories." Same story as above, it strenghtens my point. It says that species for millions of years do not change throughout their histories, they only show STASIS. Third insertion: "Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated." Also this only strengthens my point, it goes into more detail about Darwin being troubled by the fossil record. Why was Darwin troubled by the fossil record? Because he realised that it shows the oppostite of evolution. No less than eight times in his "Origen of Species" he tells us to ignore the fossil record, because it does not confirm his theory. So also that insertion strengthens and supports my point, that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution. Fourth and last insertion: " Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved." This one is the easiest misunderstood, because it says that the paleontologists in a silent way admitted that somehow, "in a general sort of way", the fossil record supported the basic thesis of evolution. But seen in the foregoing context, it is clear that this is a condemnation of that behavior, So bottom line is: The additons, or the parts left out in my quote, in no way alter the meaning of my quote. The insertions do not change the meaning of the quote to the opposite, as some troubled souls here are saying, in fact, they do nothing than strengthening my point. So why were those points left out? Because people nowadays can only handle sound bites. Everything that requires an attention span of more than 5 seconds is wasted on them. I'm not saying I'm different, it's just the reality we live in, and the reason for clipping those quotes. So, having proved that the quotes are: letter for letter correct, and that the parts left out or the broader context in no way alters the meaning of the quotes, we can conclude that the unproven accusations here on the board, hurled at somebody who has the unbelievable audicity to quote some evolutionistic scientist, are unfounded. To be more specific and to addres the individual silly notions hurled over the board here: The quotes are not distortins and misrepresentations of what the authors said. They are not "ignorant defamation of character". They are not "dishonest and taken out of context". I am not trying to make them say the opposite of what they really say. I'm not misusing them and I'm not going to burn in Hell while Satan spits the word LIAR! in my face for all eternity." (I really like that one ![]() I'm not commiting the sin of omission which is supposed to be typical for creationists, and my sources are not lying to me. I don't portray their meaning in a false way, and my usage of them is not a lie. I don't obfuscate and ignore their true meaning, and my usage of authority is not invalid. And last but not least, those quotes don't employ deception. Up till here a small sample of what has been thrown around on this board. Looks silly what? If you see it all together this way. The question is; "What evokes such obviously non-sensical, irrational, verbal abuse?" Why do evo's react on citations of high calibre evolutionsts like a bull on a red rag? Why do they start foaming at the mouth and get a red haze in front of their eyes when they are confronted with the facts of life? Or more accurately stated: When they are confronted with the facts about the fossil record? The anser is of course, because they realise that that rips apart there dearly held believe system, that all we really are is animals, and we can do whatever we feel like, without having to give a reckoning to a Higher Authority. Sorry guys, but that's just the way it is. "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion .... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. .... Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89. Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: Sudden Origins, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:'Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. Schwartz Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : Nothing better to do Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : reason: Striving for perfection Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
Talk is cheap. Talking about talking is cheaper. I've shown you the fossils, stop being afraid and look at them. They show that the animals evolved. They directly refute your argument. Discussing quotes is just a distraction. Bs'd In those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis. You coming up with some pictures is not going to change that. You ignoring those facts is just distraction. "The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured .... ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ .... their story has been suppressed." Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71 S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory. One of his articles is Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium which has been published in Geological Society of America For more info about prof Stanley look here: Earth & Planetary Sciences | Johns Hopkins University
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
for instance, if you found a dog with in its belly a dino, then ET is disproved? I cannot fathom what you are saying here. Please try again. Bs'd Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it. Would that disprove the ET according to you? "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360 Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18062 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: I guess that you don't understand the issue. A dog existing at the time of the dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous) would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. A dinosaur surviving until more modern times would not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 2032 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it.
Do you have one? That would be evidence.
Would that disprove the ET according to you? "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
And so, Simpson made an argument against gradualism... shocking.... Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360 Simpson George Gaylord is anevolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard. Are you admitting here that you cannot find evidence against evolution? You could have just said so. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it. Would that disprove the ET according to you? I guess that you don't understand the issue. A dog existing at the time of the dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous) would be a big problem for evolutionary theory. A dinosaur surviving until more modern times would not. Bs'd There we go, suddenly it is not a problem anymore. Silly putty. "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s postulate of gradualism .... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record." Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138 Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr Edited by Eliyahu, : Reason: Why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
Well, the concept is simple enough: A dog with a dino in it's belly. Like he had just eaten it. Would that disprove the ET according to you? Do you have one? That would be evidence. Bs'd That is evidence, until you get one. Then it is suddenly no evidence anymore. Let's see:
quote: "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187 Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.| American Scientist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23189 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Eliyahu writes: I repeat: We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." But didn't Eldredge say this about gradualism, not evolution? Here's a fuller quote:
Niles Eldredge in "Time Frames" writes: "And one might ask why such a distortion of the grosser patterns of the history of life has come about. For it truly seems to me that F. J. Taggart was right all along. The approach to the larger themes in the history of life taken by the modern synthesis continues the theme already painfully apparent to Taggart in 1925: a theory of gradual, progressive, adaptive change so thoroughly rules our minds and imaginations that we have somehow, collectively, turned away from some of the most basic patterns permeating the history of life. "We have a theory that -- as punctuated equilibria tells us -- is out of phase with the actual patterns of events that typically occur as species' histories unfold. And that discrepancy seems enlarged by a considerable order of magnitude when we compare what we think the larger-scale events ought to look like with what we actually find. And it has been paleontologists -- my own breed -- who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: geneticists and population biologists, to whom we owe the modern version of natural selection, can only rely on what paleontologists and systematic biologists tell them about the comings and goings of entire species, and what the large-scale evolutionary patterns really look like. "Yet on the other hand, the certainty so characteristic of evolutionary ranks since the late 1940s, the utter assurance not only that natural selection works in nature, but that we know precisely how it works, has led paleontologists to keep their own counsel. Ever since Darwin, as philosopher Michael Ruse (1982) has recently said, paleontology has occasionally played the role of the difficult child. But our usual mien has been bland, and we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not. And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation must come from a naive understanding of just what adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the larger patterns in the history of life in the next chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently offered as explanations. Throughout it all, adaptation shines through as an important theme; there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth to these themes, we need to take just one more, somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."
Source: The Quotations --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add missing cr. Edited by Percy, : Add missing quotation mark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 169 days) Posts: 290 From: Judah Joined: |
because the context does not alter the meaning of the quotes. Absolutely it does. Bs'd Talking is cheap. Show me. Talk is cheap. Talking about talking is cheaper. I've shown you the fossils, stop being afraid and look at them. They show that the animals evolved. They directly refute your argument. Discussing quotes is just a distraction. Bs'd For the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes. That is of course, because they don't. You are just throwing lies around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8716 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Sorry, Moose, that was an excellent and well deserved snark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
That is not a dog.
The creationist drivel you quote is unusually deceitful and halfwitted even for creationist drivel. Really, they come up with lies this dumb and then they wonder why they're not allowed to teach them in science class? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
For the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes. That is of course, because they don't. But this has been shown, and everyone reading this thread knows it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18062 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: Up to now there was at least the possibility that you were being deceived by the dishonesty of others. At least you've removed that with this thoroughly dishonest answer. The extinction of the dinosaurs isn't a prediction of evolutionary theory, it's a fact established by the lack of evidence of any surviving dinosaurs (birds excepted) after the end of the Cretaceous. If we found evidence that some other dinosaur had survived long enough to be caught and eaten by a dog that would just mean that some few dinosaurs had managed to survive longer than we believed from the evidence that we had. If you don't understand the theory of evolution to even that extent, that isn't because the theory is "silly putty" it's just that you are hopelessly ignorant of the theory that you are supposedly trying to refute. And, of course, your quote has nothing to do with the issue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
For the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes. No - it just alters your interpretation of the quotes. The quotees disagree with the position you are trying to defend: That the fossil record COMPLETELY disproves evolution. That there is NO evolution. The quotes don't say anything about this. They just talk about the history of evolution as being mostly morphological stasis. And that's what the full context tells us. They aren't saying this disproves evolution (your claim) but that this disproves gradualism as the normal mode of evolution. Something you have failed to address. We're nearly 150 posts in and you haven't provided any evidence for your debate position. Just some quotes which don't support it. It's not looking good, but there's still time!
So they didn't dare to stand up and tell the truth, but instead they half heatedly vaguely mumbled something about evolution, because if they would not have, their careers and jobs would have been on the line. Here you are admitting that they don't agree with your debate thesis. You say they are not telling the truth. So what is the truth? What evidence do you have that actually verifies this is true?
So here we have Eldredge, who loudly and clearly admits that "science" has been lying to the public for more than hundred years. Let's call it a lie. A lie about what? Gradualism. It is disputed that people lied about gradualism, but let's just go with it for the moment. Does this show that evolution is disproved? No.
Also this only strengthens my point, it goes into more detail about Darwin being troubled by the fossil record. Why was Darwin troubled by the fossil record? Because he realised that it shows the oppostite of evolution. What is your evidence that Darwin was troubled because he realised it showed the opposite of evolution? The quote was talking about gradualism, not evolution. Where have you got this idea from?
No less than eight times in his "Origen of Species" he tells us to ignore the fossil record, because it does not confirm to his theory. Really?
I don't portray their meaning in a false way, and my usage of them is not a lie. But you haven't provided any evidence that the science is wrong.
Why do evo's react on citations of high calibre evolutionsts like a bull on a red rag? Because we've been doing this for years, and the same quotes are used to imply people are saying things they are not. To the point where at least one of the authors quoted spoke publically against the practice. You are implying what they say is a problem for evolution. Yet it is not. You also plagiarised these people, which is the among the worst intellectual crimes you can commit in debate and thesis building, and then didn't aplogize when you were caught. So yeah, we're going gore you for these kinds of things.
Why do they start foaming at the mouth and get a red haze in front of their eyes when they are confronted with the facts of life? You haven't provided any facts of life, just quotes from people. You've studiously avoided talking about the actual physical facts of the universe - instead chosen to talk about your interpretation of authors and how they lie to keep their jobs whenever they say something that disagrees with your thesis. Let's talk about the facts of life shall we? Does the fossil record show that life on earth has changed as time as progressed? Or does the fossil record show that the life in lowest and therefore oldest strata is identical in composition to extant modern life (with some allowances for 'change within a baramin')? Don't let that red haze stop you! Confront this fact of life.
The anser is of course, because they realise that that rips apart there dearly held believe system, that all we really are is animals, and we can do whatever we feel like, without having to give a reckoning to a Higher Authority. Ah - so there it is. We're the immoral animalistic primitives. Got it.Actually I don't believe we can do whatever we feel like, without reckoning. If I murdered someone there is a decent chance that the Higher Authority would cause me to lose friends, family and my liberty. That Higher Authority is society, the social contract, the justice system etc. It doesn't claim perfection, but does have the advantage of being something I can provide evidence for, were I to be arguing in favour of it in a debate. Can you demonstrate that the fossil record CONCLUSIVELY disproves evolution? OR can you only show that quotes can be disputably interpreted to question the motives of scientists and look like evolution faces a problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
From Message 137:
In those citations high calibre evolutionists say loud and clear that the fossil record does NOT show any evolution, but stasis. False, they do not say that the fossil record does not show any evolution, they are talking about a specific evolutionary idea: gradualism. They are talking about gradualism in particular, and not evolution in general. They are saying that the fossil record does not show gradualism (evolution), but instead shows punctuated equilibrium (also evolution). Again, this was settled 40 years ago. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Basically, you're saying that because someone prefers chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, then that means that they do not like ice cream at all. That's stupid.
You coming up with some pictures is not going to change that. Who cares? If someone said that grass is purple, and I show you a picture that shows that grass is green, then why does it matter if someone said that grass is purple? Why would you keep clinging to what that other person said when you can see the grass for yourself? We all know why: You're so desperate to find a chink in the evolutionary armor, that you'd rather focus on old outdated quotations, than actually look at the evidence yourself, because you know that the evidence proves evolution.
You ignoring those facts is just distraction. What? How is ignoring something a distraction? Ya dingus!
For the record, let it be noted that you cannot give any support for your notion that the context of the quotes alters the meaning of the quotes. Are you fucking retarded? How could context not alter the meaning of quotes?
quote: The real meaning of those quotes, and how your isolation from context changes them, has been explained to you ad nauseam.
You are just throwing lies around. That impossible, because what I said was true. And this is coming from the guy who is cherry picking 40 year old quote mines. The same guy who blatantly plagarized in Message 67:
quote: Pathetic.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025