Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Freddy]

Item # 2 and 6 from the New Scientist publications should give god of buc advocates pause.

2 EVOLUTION SHOWS INTELLIGENCE (memory, optimization, induction)

6 ADAPT FIRST, MUTATE LATER (Neo-Lamarckian adaptation)

I have been posting about this for years. Now even the mainstream is starting to venture from their darwinian safe space. The floodgates are opening…

You’re saying we should trust New Scientist?

 

[buffalo]

You’re saying we should trust New Scientist?

I say new evidence should be considered. Don’t play that stupid game of pointing to other NS evo supporting articles to discredit.

The point is - even NS is now considering and publishing these emerging findings. You should to.

Look at the mess with classifying species.

https://www.nature.com/news/taxonomy-anarchy-hampers-conservation-1.22064

 

[o_mlly]

Look at the mess with classifying species.

It’s a bird? It’s a plane! … No it’s superspecies.

superspecies

[ /ˈso͞opər/spēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/]

noun​

a novel category for a thing more likely to get me published

 

[Techno2000]

buffalo:

Look at the mess with classifying species.

It’s a bird? It’s a plane! … No it’s superspecies.

superspecies

[ /ˈso͞opər/spēsēz,ˈspēSHēz/]

noun​

a novel category for a thing more likely to get me published

Just think of how many Fit/Unfit environmental scenarios it would have taken for evolution to produce the huge diversity of all the millions of plants and animals we have here on the Earth.

 

[PickyPicky]

Experiments have shown genetic entropy.

Does genetic entropy mean that deleterious mutations will mount up to the point that a species ceases to be viable? I’m sure it’s correct to say deleterious mutations can lead to death.

The organisms have built in code that maintain them, much like a rubberband, it will stretch but wants to return to its unstressed state.

Can you say what this code consists of, and where it sits?

Living fossils show us the mean

Can you explain this, please?

Organism have error correcting mechanisms that through several iterations limit random mutational changes unless they are cell directed.

This has been front loaded into the archetypes

Can you explain and locate these mechanisms?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You’re saying we should trust New Scientist?

I say new evidence should be considered. Don’t play that stupid game of pointing to other NS evo supporting articles to discredit.

So you say we should trust what they print but we shouldn’t trust everything they print. Have I got that right?

And as I said, we don’t know what New Scientist wrote because you need a subscription. So either you have one - in which case give us a precis, or you don’t have one and all you are doing is giving us some headlines.

I’d say you don’t. I mean, why subscibe to a publication that can’t even get the age of the planet right.

Remember? I did tell you that anything to which you link, unless it’s directly from an ID site, will somewhere directly contradict the very basis of your position.

 

[MatthewGerardJohn]

Also, if there were no Adam & Eve, then that would have to mean there was no Original Sin that brought sin into the world. Another thing, there would be no major reason for Baptism. Since this is all dogma of the Church, Darwinism can’t be the case.

 

[Freddy]

Also, if there were no Adam & Eve…

Why couldn’t there be? Why couldn’t God ensoul a couple anytime He wanted?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Also, if there were no Adam & Eve, then that would have to mean there was no Original Sin that brought sin into the world. Another thing, there would be no major reason for Baptism. Since this is all dogma of the Church, Darwinism can’t be the case.

If you read my previous posts, I believe Adam and Eve were humans selected from the non-ensouled H. Sapiens population to be the very first ensouled humans. Evolution and God aren’t in conflict.

 

[Buzzard3]

All you are here to do is ridicule and be as negative as you can.

A scientific theory that is clearly contradicted by the fossil record deserves to be ridiculed.

Yet there are libraries of information out there. Countless articles. Literally hundreds of thousands of books. Thousands upon thousands of experts in dozens of scientific fields. There is information out there ranging from that which is suitable for young children to that which you’d need a masters degree to comprehend. This is a subject that has been discussed for well over a century with some of the planets best minds working on it. It’s quite possibly the single most investigated process in science. It’s applicable to so many branches of science that it would be quicker to list the ones that it doesn’t impact than the ones it does.

Despite all the hype, the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth is a big, fat balloon of hot air – it proves nothing, explains almost nothing, has not advanced science, has not produced any practical scientific use.

It is the story of life itself.

It is certainly a “story”, but it is not science – the neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth cannot be put to the test.

“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Dr. Collin Patterson, British paleontologist, Natural History Museum)

And it is not THE “story of life”, but A “story of life” - a story whose main raison d’etre seems to be the promotion of atheism.

It is how we came to be.

Spoken like a true atheist. You can’t prove that it is “how we came to be” … all you can do is insist that it’s true, based on your psychological need to believe that it’s true.

My grandson could give a reasonably accurate summary of evolution. And you say you have no idea.

When did I say I have no idea about the theory of evolution or Darwinist folklore? I said our knowledge of the history of life on earth is based on the fossil record, which does not necessarily give us a comprehensive picture of what happened over billions of years of life on earth.

Your second question was about life on earth . A different question with a different answer. Life on earth has not existed forever because the earth itself has not existed forever.

You said you are not an atheist, so I was curious as to your beliefs about the origin of life on earth … I think I can glean from all your vagueness and beating about the bush that you don’t believe the origin of life on earth had a supernatural cause. Does that mean you think the first life-form on earth was the result of an accident?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

A scientific theory that is clearly contradicted by the fossil record deserves to be ridiculed.

Falling back on the same debunked notions.

And it is not THE “story of life”, but A “story of life” - a story whose main raison d’etre seems to be

the extent to which it matches all available evidence and explains modern observations.

Still don’t see your explanation for why earth is diverse. You’ve said you have one, in very vague terms, but you aren’t willing to give one yourself.

 

[Buzzard3]

Believed nothing which you claim he did.

Huh?? I didn’t make a “claim” about what Gould believed. What are you talking about?

Gould was a staunch evolutionist, and would rightly call you out on cherry-picking quotes of his to support your position.

Gould certainly was a staunch evolutionist - he was also honest enough to admit that the gaps in the fossil record posed a problem to evolutionary theory … going so far as to call the fossil record an “embarrassment ” to Darwinian theory:
“Darwin’s argument [that the fossil record is imperfect and incomplete] still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the EMBARRASSMENT of a record that seem to show so little evolution directly … I wish only to point out that it [gradualism] was NEVER “SEEN” IN THE ROCKS” … We [paleontologists] fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as SO BAD that we ALMOST NEVER SEE the process we profess to study” ( The Panda’s Thumb, pp. 181-182. Emphasis added ).

Oh dear!

Gould and Eldridge were so troubled by the fossil record that they felt compelled to invent the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium in an attempt to explain away the “embarrassment” it posed to Darwinism (it didn’t work, of course – PE is just another one of those untestable - and therefore unscientific - theories that Darwinists love to peddle and have added to their folklore.

But wait … there more! Gould goes on to state:
”The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
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.’” ( The Panda’s Thumb, p.182).

Charles Darwin himself stated that if his theory was true, the pre-Cambrian world must have “swarmed with living creatures” – sorry Mr. Darwin, but the opposite is true … the pre-Cambrian world is virtually a desert, as far as evolutionary antecedents are concerned.

 

[Buzzard3]

That’s why so much of our DNA is common between us!

Common descent is the best scientific explanation for why humans and birds share “so much of our DNA”. However, since we believe in a Creator, there are other possible explanations … for example, the history of life could be due to a process by which God took the DNA of one creature and from it created a different (evolved) creature. This would explain both the simiiarities in DNA and the gaps in the fossil record.

I have. It’s a ridiculous theory. No changes in the human anatomy have ever been detected among fossils or ancient mummified remains which would indicate such a sudden change.

Who’s talking about “changes in human anatomy”? Sore backs and poor eyesight, for example, don’t involve “changes in human anatomy”, but could simply be the result of inherited genetic defects or old age, all of which could be stem from the curse of Original Sin.
Ditto for the perceived loss of appendix utility, which may have also been a result of the Fall, and it didn’t have to be sudden. Humans used to live for almost 1000 years … now we only live for “three score and ten”; it wasn’t until after the Flood that God said to Noah et al that they could eat the flesh of animals (Gen 9:3), which suggests pre-Flood humans were vegetarians, which in turn could have something to do with the appendix.

Nobody has said this except you.

Thanks for the compliment. But wait … are you saying we won’t have to wait billions of years for our glorified, resurrection bodies to evolve from a bug? Are you saying God can create a human body instantly, out of nothing?

Because it’s not a miraculous creation event.

You need to stop reading Darwinist folklore and propaganda … and start reading about reality. All animal phyla appearing suddenly with virtually no evidence of evolutionary history looks very much like a “miraculous creation event” to me. As a someone who believes in a divine Creator, I’m very happy to discover that God has left a very obvious sign of his miraculous work in the fossil record, in the form of the Cambrian explosion.

Next you’ll be telling us that the appearance of the first prokaryote was “not a miraculous creation event” either!
Why theistic evo-warriors seem determined to “not let a divine foot in the door” is beyond me.

One look at the organization’s history says the exact opposite.

That’s like saying a Catholic can’t be scientific. Please cite one example from any article published on evolutionnews.org that employs a non-scientific argument to criticize Darwinism or to promote ID. I’ve read lots of their stuff and have never come across anything not reasoned from science.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Few problems with this: First, morphological changes big enough to create species distinctions are likely sudden. Evolution which causes large species variations is brought about by sudden changes (sudden on a geological timescale). A species does not evolve without changing living conditions; or if it’s successful despite them. Trilobites are great examples of this. They were pretty consistent in between climate and environment changes, but diversified when things changed around them. Stasis is to be expected.

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.’” ( The Panda’s Thumb, p.182).

If humanity left earth altogether, and then returned later with no knowledge of Earth humans, they would assume, based on the prevalence of adult skeletons, that all humans on Earth were created as adults, with the exception of a few babies. There’s a lot more of them, after all. This is what we do with fossils. You’re trying to represent massive populations with small subsets, and saying they only appear as “fully-formed.” This, too, is a misconception: All species are transitional forms in some respect. Evolution is continuous; no species is “fully formed.”

Charles Darwin himself stated that if his theory was true, the pre-Cambrian world must have “swarmed with living creatures” – sorry Mr. Darwin, but the opposite is true …

False. Life was abundant far before the Cambrian period. The Cambrian just saw the mass diversification of hard-bodied organisms that create fossils.

example, the history of life could be due to a process by which God took the DNA of one creature and from it created a different (evolved) creature.

Which is an absolutely illogical notion. Why go through all that trouble of just skipping the whole evolution thing? Why did God create so many different prehistoric species and wipe them out if the whole intent of creation was to create man?

all of which could be stem from the curse of Original Sin.

Point to me where the anatomical changes in the fossil record are when original sin occurred. How did humans suddenly get much worse and imperfect after the fall, when other hominid species have the same issues?

Thanks for the compliment. But wait … are you saying we won’t have to wait billions of years for our glorified, resurrection bodies to evolve from a bug? Are you saying God can create a human body instantly, out of nothing?

Of course God can. When have I ever claimed differently?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

All animal phyla appearing suddenly with virtually no evidence of evolutionary history looks very much like a “miraculous creation event” to me.

It wasn’t all. Not even close.

Why theistic evo-warriors seem determined to “not let a divine foot in the door” is beyond me.

God gets all credit for creation. He just didn’t create all of Earth’s species suddenly.

Please cite one example from any article published on evolutionnews.org that employs a non-scientific argument to criticize Darwinism or to promote ID.

The organization itself is pseudoscientific and founded on the lie that they’re a legitimate scientific research organization. They’re not.

The only thing keeping me going in this discussion is determination to make sure everyone knows that Catholicism isn’t exclusively anti-science and that reason and logic have an actual place. I’m hoping that there’s some actual benefit to that idea.

 

[Freddy]

Humans used to live for almost 1000 years … now we only live for “three score and ten”; it wasn’t until after the Flood that God said to Noah et al that they could eat the flesh of animals (Gen 9:3), which suggests pre-Flood humans were vegetarians, which in turn could have something to do with the appendix.

I think that sums up your position quite nicely, Buzz. Or rather it actually sums up ours. We’re trying to have a sensible scientific discussion with someone who reads the bible literally.

Not that reading it that way is wrong in itself. It just excludes you from discussing anything that runs contrary to that reading. Why on earth not admit to that in the first instance? That life as we know it cannot have been the result of the evolutionary process if all of it descendended from a handfull of creatures that Noah kept on his boat.

What on earth is the point of writing post after post about punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian Explosion and arguing minor points about arcane matters when all you had to say was ‘it all started with ‘kinds’ 6,000 years ago’.

It would have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[rossum]

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.’” ( The Panda’s Thumb, p.182).

You missed the words “local area” in that piece. The first humans in the Americas did indeed appear suddenly. One day there were no humans in the Americas and the very next day a canoe load of humans had landed from the Asian mainland. Species evolve in one place and then spread to other places. All those other places see sudden appearance. You missed a very obvious point with that “local area” specification.

You need to read your sources more carefully. A species will generally slowly evolve in one place and then spread suddenly to other places. Hence most fossils of that species will appear suddenly in areas they migrated to or were carried to. Alpacas appear suddenly in Europe for example.

 

[Freddy]

Buzzard3:

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.’” ( The Panda’s Thumb, p.182).

You missed the words “local area” in that piece. The first humans in the Americas did indeed appear suddenly. One day there were no humans in the Americas and the very next day a canoe load of humans had landed from the Asian mainland. Species evolve in one place and then spread to other places. All those other places see sudden appearance. You missed a very obvious point with that “local area” specification.

You need to read your sources more carefully. A species will generally slowly evolve in one place and then spread suddenly to other places. Hence most fossils of that species will appear suddenly in areas they migrated to or were carried to. Alpacas appear suddenly in Europe for example.

Buzz doesn’t believe humans in America arrived anytime before the flood. He doesn’t believe that they arrived 20,000 years ago. He must believe they arrived suddenly.

“The first arrivals keep getting older and older because we’re finding more evidence as time goes on. Right now we can solidly say that people were across the Americas by 15,000 years ago. But that means people were probably already well in place by then; and there’s enough evidence to suggest humans were widespread 20,000 years ago. There’s some evidence of people as far back as 30,000 to 40,000 years ago, but the evidence gets thinner and thinner the further back you go. It appears there’s not a single arrival date. No doubt there was a first person walking in, but when that happened is well before 20,000 years ago.”

What say you, Buzz?

 

[buffalo]

Common descent is the best scientific explanation for why humans and birds share “so much of our DNA”.

Common design and hgt is the best scientific explanation for why humans and birds share “so much of our DNA”.

 

[whatistrue]

Just think of how many Fit/Unfit environmental scenarios

It never was “survival of the fit” but rather survival of the fittest". Do you still not get the difference? Short version is that mere survival is not the issue, but rather it is more descendants.