When I get an additional 15 minutes I’ll give you more:
“Chance alone is at the source of all novelty, all creation in the biosphere,…”
“Pure chance, only chance, absolute but blind liberty
is at the root of the prodigious edifice that is evolution…”
- The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod Monod, “Chance and Necessity” (1970)
It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn’t work. [Dawkins 1996: 67]
“**The extreme rarity of transitional forms **in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology … The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear… 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’. 6 The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. " Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, Vol. 5, 1977”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“While Gould is celebrated among non-scientists for the color and energy of his prose and his massive interdisciplinary knowledge, his critics have concerns that the **theory has gained undeserved credence **among non-scientists because of Gould’s rhetorical skills.”
Ancient Apelike Fossil Not Human Ancestor, Study Finds
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061208-little-foot.html
A pre-human fossil found in a South African cave may be more than a million years younger than was previously thought, a new study has discovered.
If the new findings are right,
the fossil is not a direct human ancestor, as had been believed, but instead belongs to a side branch of the evolutionary tree that eventually led to modern apes and humans.
Theory on evolution of essential genes is overturned by new finding
bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/essentialgenes.htm
This finding,
that an essential gene has a relatively recent origin, overturns the conventional notion that genes with vital functions must have been created a long time ago, but raises important questions about why and how this particular gene evolved.
“This discovery really changes our concept of how new gene function can evolve, which is a major issue for evolutionary biology,” said Dr Tim Karr from the University of Bath, who made the discovery with colleagues in the Centre de Genetique Moleculaire et Cellulaire in France and the University of Chicago.
“It is remarkable to think that through a range of random, naturally-occurring genetic changes over a few million years, a new essential gene has evolved. Obviously other species of fruit fly don’t need this gene but they may have other genes that serve a similar function. At first the gene may have conveyed some as yet unknown benefit that eventually became essential during the course of evolution. It could even have been involved in the early processes leading to speciation of this group of fruit flies,” said Dr Karr.
“Uprooting the Tree of Life”
science-frontiers.com/sf128/sf128p05.htm
After first noting that 10 years ago it was generally agreed that all organisms evolved from a single ancestral cell that existed about 3.5 billion years ago, there comes the assertion that the Tree of Life:
“is far more complicated than was believed and may not have had a single root at all.”
Many non-members are having difficulting following your discourse. They don’t have a way of easily reviewing the material of the individual whom you are responding to, thinking that there might be absence of important information.