Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
But there is POWER in belonging to a big group.
Have you ever heard of the Burgess Shale? There are many fossils of soft-tissued organisms that have been found there, as well as tens of thousands of fossils invertebrates that have been collected there. The explantion that purported precursors have not been discovered because they were soft bodied is belied by these discoveries. If there are invertebrate precursors to verterbrates that have been discovered in the fossil record that document the transition I would like to see them, and I would like to know why prominent evolutionists admit that they do not appear in the fossil record if they indeed, do.
Cordially,
I didn't think you would accept it, which was my original point. And it is not controversial among creationists because of laboratory contamination or the like, it is controversial to them because of their differing flood geology scenarios. If you have evidence of improper collection or laboratory techniques by these authors lets see it.
Good day to you, too. For better or worse, I have to go back to work.
Cordially,
"Tie the dog loose and let him run the alley up and down."
Was that one that your child said?
I'm going to do several posts - some information that several others apparently 'could not be bothered with' from www.creationscience.com Part 1. Part 1 contains more than 1-2 anomolies with TOE (so don't shoot the messenger). This site is well researched. Anytime you see the lowercase letter (these subscripts do not appear above/below the line due to copy/paste problems) they provide more information to other books and articles.
13. Language
Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules.a Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved.b
Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film. (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings.c)
Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.d
Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used.e
If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb form, and inflection. The best evidence indicates that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex.f Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages.g [See Figure 140 on page 263.]
If humans evolved, then so did language. Because all available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, then humans probably did not evolve.
Have you ever heard of the Burgess Shale? There are many fossils of soft-tissued organisms that have been found there, as well as tens of thousands of fossils invertebrates that have been collected there. The explantion that purported precursors have not been discovered because they were soft bodied is belied by these discoveries. If there are invertebrate precursors to verterbrates that have been discovered in the fossil record that document the transition I would like to see them, and I would like to know why prominent evolutionists admit that they do not appear in the fossil record if they indeed, do.
~
Are you under the misapprehension that vertebrates evolved during the Cambrian explosion??
The Burgess Shale is a unique and invaluable deposit, unfortunately such conditions were not present everywhere (and everywhen) we would like them to be. The Burgess Shale is the exception, not the rule.
At any rate you need to parse my post again. I said that the Cambrian explosion is not as explosive as originally thought because we have gone back and found organisms living earlier that were thought to have originated in the Cambrian explosion.
The Cambrian explosion definitely is an important period in evolution, and the rapid radiation see here was probably enabled by a variety of factors including global warming (oh no!), a higher oxygen content of the atmosphere, and the emergence of the Hox genes, which allow for rapid and significant changes in body plan.
Would it trouble you to know that starlings share the same innate ability to understand recursive grammar that we have, but the other great apes do not?
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish,a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portionsb that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas.
Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish. He wrote: No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.
Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly (many) strate (strata) fossils. Consider how quickly this tree trunk in Germany must have been buried. Had it been slowly, its top would have decayed. Obviously, the tree could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial.
(sorry couldn't get the picture posted too).
If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.a At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae).b Fossil links are also missing between numerous plants,c between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones),e between fish and amphibians,f between amphibians and reptiles,g between reptiles and mammals,h between reptiles and birds,i between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.k In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.l
-
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b Hoofprints of some other animal are alongside 1,000 dinosaur footprints in Virginia.c A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than a 100 million years.d Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistane and Arizona.f Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.g Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.h Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
Petrified trees in Arizona’s petrified forest contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants which bees require) supposedly evolved almost a 100 million years later.l Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale.
again - I'm going to do several posts - some information that several others apparently 'could not be bothered with' from www.creationscience.com Part 1. Part 1 contains more than 1-2 anomolies with TOE (so don't shoot the messenger). This site is well researched. Anytime you see the lowercase letter (these subscripts do not appear above/below the line due to copy/paste problems) they provide more information to other books and articles.
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.
While Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists.a For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles.b Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species are relatively few.c New features apparently don’t evolve.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.a
Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.b
For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,
• a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved,c
• a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins,
• a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more,d or
• a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated.e
While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.
The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.f Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.g
Again from www.creationscience.com...
“It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.
Again from www.creationscience.com Part 1:
8. Complex Molecules and Organs
Many molecules necessary for life, such as DNA, RNA, and proteins, are so incredibly complex that claims they evolved are questionable. Furthermore, those claims lack experimental support.a
There is no reason to believe that mutations or any natural process could ever produce any new organs—especially those as complex as the eye,b the ear, or the brain.c For example, an adult human brain contains over 10 to the 14th (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections,d more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel.e
33. Genetic Information
The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books.a Even if matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero.b It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced:c
a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step “b.”
To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the 40,000th trials.d (To understand how large this is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10 to the 80th atoms in it.)
Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as “junk DNA,” because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this “junk” explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term “junk DNA” reflected past ignorance.e
34. DNA Production and Repair
DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors;d if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.
Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial.
I'm sorry, but my response to this is, "Duh!" If an animal dies and is not rapidly buried, it rots and scavengers spread the carcass around. The only way that an animal can be fossilized is to be rapidly buried! This is why our richest fossil field are from shallow seas, swamps, and rivers. This in itself does not provide evidence for either YEC or evolution. However, YEC demands that all strata be laid down during the Flood 4000 years ago. Many features of geologic strata are inconsistent with deposition under water. Additionally, radiometric dating methods reliably date strata to much older ages than allowed by YEC.
Here is an article discussing "polystrate" fossils and whether they truly present a problem for an ancient earth.
I don't know why you are presenting the same bad information about the fossil record once again as I replied to it the last time. I'm afraid you're not going to convince me by once again repeating the same thing.
Regarding the last part of your post, in order for us to respond to it you need to provide the documentation of these finds including photographs and dating methods. Without documentation those are worthless.
see prior 4-5 posts for source...
26. Ape-Men?
For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin.a Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent.b
Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated.c
• It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet, it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.d
• Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakeye and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw.f Ramapithecus was just an ape.g [See Figure 13.]
• The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth. [See Figure 14.]
• Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.h
• Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man.i Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.j
• The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportionsk and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).l
• The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes.m Another study of their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of humans.n Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.o One australopithecine fossil—a 31/2-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called “Lucy”—was initially presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely. She probably swung from the treesp and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees.q The australopithecines are probably extinct apes.r
• For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.s Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today.t Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.
Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed sequencing human DNA and long before sequencing chimpanzee DNA had begun.
Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.g Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements.”h Although its only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.
Why are you posting that DNA screed to me? My relevant specialties are bones and radiocarbon dating.
excuses, excuses...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html
Nope, abiogenesis is an extremely different process than spontaneous generation, it look a long time to get started, and it could not happen today because bacteria and protists would eat up the precursor molecules before anything could happen.
For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations.
Not really, evolution is not driven so much by copying errors as by environmental DNA damage. If it were the first we would expect rapid evolution in rapidly reproducing organisms, and if it were the second we would expect similar evolutionary rates no matter what the generation time is. What we actually see is typically (although not always) closer to the second.
Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles.
As shown above, incorrect. Additionally, how are they measuring who has "evolved the most"? Specialization does not indicate more evolution. Evolution (the change in frequency of alleles in a population) occurs continually in all species, even those we would consider simple.
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments.
They speak as if evolution has a goal, which I suppose could be outlined as:
Evolution does not have a goal. Lengthy absence of change into a new group in a certain species is not evidence that evolution does not occur.
While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.
For the last thirty years YEC have been ignoring the mecA gene, a novel gene that was manufactured by splicing together two genes to form a new one, thus adding information to the bacterial genome and providing us with a major antibiotic resistant infectious threat.
While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest.
Yes, natural selection acts upon pre-existing traits. The missing piece--mutation. Mutation in all its myriad forms provides the variation that natural selection acts upon.
Bad math plus argument from personal incredulity. Sigh! Too much spam to respond to at length!
I'm sorry, but I don't consider plagiarism a virtue. It's one of my faults.
1,154 is more in your area.
Spam spam spam!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.