Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: jennyp

You are saying, in different words, that orthodox Darwinists find the fossil record to be in complete accord with their view of evolution. True. What can't be escaped is that Gould considered his concept to be 1) more faithful to the evidence in the fossil record than Neo-Darwinism is and 2) different from orthodox Neo-Darwinism. Dawkins may believe that Gould agreed with him (while merely placing emphasis on different aspects of the evidence), but it is clear that Gould considered his own views to differ from Dawkins'.


10 posted on 01/21/2006 5:23:33 PM PST by Driveblock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Driveblock
Sure, but it's not like punk eek is some sort of fundamental break from neo-Darwinism, as the author (& creationists in general) try to characterize it.

Mayr's emphasis on allopatric speciation (geographical separation of a breakaway population) leads to punk eek - but it's also a fundamental aspect of neo-Darwinism itself.

The Wikipedia article on punk eek is a good one. See also this essay by Gould where he looks back on punk eek & its ramifications.

12 posted on 01/21/2006 10:23:30 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Driveblock

What does the fossil record really teach concerning the theory of evolution? Do the fossils demonstrate the progression from simple structures to complex organisms? The following facts need to be considered:


Abrupt appearance of animals. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (David Kitts, paleontologist and Evolutionist) Darwin was embarrassed by the fossil record. It contains no proof for macroevolution of animals.

Plants appear abruptly, too. Evolutionist Edred J.H. Corner: "... I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (Evolution in Contemporary Thought, 1961, p.97) Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.

Animals unchanged. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man.

Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism.

Fast strata formation. There is increasing evidence that many sedimentary rocks, which some thought took thousands or millions of years to accumulate, almost certainly were deposited in only months, days, hours, or minutes.

Rapid coal formation. The old Evolutionary theory about coal forming in swamps is wrong. There is increasing evidence that massive coal deposits were formed in deep flood waters. Various coal layers in the U.S. consist mainly of sheets of tree bark abraded from huge masses of uprooted trees. The bark layers were buried in mud and carbonized into coal. Coal formation is relatively quick when heat is applied.

Fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust. Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and preservation. Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish, and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid sediments.

Wrong order for evolution. It has been reported that "80 to 85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order" for Evolution.

The fossil record does not provide evidence in support for Evolution. "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html


15 posted on 01/21/2006 10:39:40 PM PST by Creationist (If the earth is old show me your proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson