Evolution: The fossils will always say no

[kendemyer]

THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM

Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9


SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD AS A WHOLE

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson,
'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45



Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

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."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46


A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)


Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)


"For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno,
The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137–2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

[Hitch]

Kinda supports the Evolution as (quasi) religion ideas eh?

[technomage]

Kinda supports the Evolution as (quasi) religion ideas eh?

Only in the same sense that selectively quoting the Bible supports any number of schismatic and heretical doctrines.

Quote-mining is such a fascinating game. Any idiot can play--and ninety-nine percent of them do.

[Seasanctuary]

Ken, I'm curious. Do you think the dating of the fossils is generally accurate?

[kendemyer]

to: Seasanctuary

Ken, I'm curious. Do you think the dating of the fossils is generally accurate?

I am a young earth creationist.

[kendemyer]

TO: A cup of mystery

re: quotes

One of my favorites quotes I cited was from a senior science writer for the science journal Nature:

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

[Snarf]

TO: A cup of mystery

re: quotes

One of my favorites quotes I cited was from a senior science writer for the science journal Nature:

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

Aren't you the one who thinks that vegetarian cats proves that lions can live without eating meat?

[kendemyer]

TO: Snarf

You wrote:

Aren't you the one who thinks that vegetarian cats proves that lions can live without eating meat?

Please no off topic unsupported accusations.

[Minnesota]

Yeah, the quote mining is quite amusing, particularly when one considers the background of some of the authors: an aerospace engineer and a political scientist, to name two, and the convenient exclusion of some rather embarrassing text that accompanies the quotes. Then there are those quotes to which one can only say, "So what?" and one in particular kendemyer cites as one of his favorites: "Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether." If this is a favorite, one can only wonder if he has any clue as to how to read and interpret the words of others.

For the record:

LUTHER D. SUNDERLAND, B.S. (Penn State University), an aerospace engineer with the General Electric Company, was involved for 30 years with the research and development of automatic flight control systems (autopilots) for a number of aircraft such as the F-111, Boeing 757 and 767.

Mr. Sunderland was known for his active fight to get creation science back into the schools of his own state, as well as many other districts in the nation, for over twenty years.

http://www.creationism.org/books/sunderland/

Robert Wesson, a political scientist who has undergone ecdysis, is Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California. [died 1991]

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...ype=2&tid=8998

A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)

So what does Ridley say after this, words Kendemyer conveniently leaves out?

`In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of
evolution as opposed to special creation. That does not mean that
the theory of evolution is unproven.
`So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have
traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the
"fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The
three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from
biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.'
(page 831)

`These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of
species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made,
not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative.
Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the
presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs),
in nature.' (page 832)

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberr.../_mridley.html

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

And just what preceded Kendemyer's quote?

"Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

E. J. H. Corner, Contemporary Botanical Thought Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1961, page 97.

[Snarf]

TO: Snarf

You wrote:



Please no off topic unsupported accusations.

Can the word of someone, who can't tell the difference between a cat and a lion, be trusted when said person is speaking of biology?

[Snarf]

THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORTS CREATIONISM

Completeness of the fossil record:

"There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world."—*Porter Kier, quoted in New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129.

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track.

The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9


SOME COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOSSIL RECORD AS A WHOLE

"The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." Robert G. Wesson,
'Beyond Natural Selection', 1991, p. 45



Quote from author, paleontologist, evolutionist, and curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, Niles Eldredge and co-author Ian Tattersall who is Curator, Deptartment of Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History and who is also a evolutionist).

"Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...

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."

Niles Eldredge & Ian Tattersall,
'The Myths of Human Evolution', 1982, p. 45-46


A widely read evolutionist and scientist states the following regarding the fosssil record:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 (Mark Ridley is an evolutionist)


Some quotes regarding the fossil record that are more specific:

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"If the genealogies of animals are uncertain, more so are those of plants. We cannot learn a great deal from petrified plant anatomy which shows different spades at different times, but no real phylogeny [transitional plant species changes] at all. There are simply fascinating varieties of the plants we have today—some new species of course—plus many extinctions: but algae, mosses, pines, ferns and flowering plants are all clearly recognizable from their first appearance in the fossil record." —Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 181.

"We do not know the phylogenetic history of any group of plants and animals." —*E. Core, General Biology (1981), p. 299.

"Fossil remains, however, give no information on the origin of the vertebrates." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 587 (1976 edition, Macropaedia).

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." —World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 291 (1982 edition). (regarding reptiles becoming birds)


"For use in understanding the evolution of vertebrate flight, the early record of pterosaurs and bats is disappointing: Their most primitive representatives are fully transformed as capable fliers." Paul C. Sereno,
The evolution of dinosaurs, Science 284(5423):2137–2147 (quote on p. 2143), June 25, 1999

"The fossil record does not give any information on the origin of insects." —*Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 7, p. 585 (1978 edition; Macropaedia).

"Insect origins beyond that point [the Carboniferous] are shrouded in mystery. It might almost seem that the insects had suddenly appeared on the scene, but this is not in agreement with accepted [evolutionary] ideas of animal origins." —*A.E. Hutchins, Insects (1988), pp. 3,4.

"The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown. There are various features, many of them noted above, in which the two typical subclasses of bony fish are already widely divergent when we first see them." —*A.S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology (1988), p. 53.

"....squirrels have evolved in patterns that seem to differ in no important ways from their living relative Sciurus. Since Sciurus is so similar to what is apparently the primitive squirrel morphotype, it seems to fit the concept of 'living fossil.’" –*R. Emry and *A. Thorington, "The Tree Squirrel Sciurus as a Living Fossil," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 30.

"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." - Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist. 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.

"Unfortunately, the fossil record which would enable us to trace the emergence of the apes is still hopelessly incomplete. We do not know either when or where distinctively apelike animals first began to diverge from monkey stock . . Unfortunately, the early stages of man's evolutionary progress along his own individual line remain a total mystery."— *Sarel Elmer and *Irven DeVore and the *Editors of Life, The Primates (1985), p. 15.

"No fossil or other physical evidence directly connects man to ape." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations," Science Digest, February 1982, p. 90.

"Even this relatively recent history [of evolution from apes to man] is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details." Theodosius Dobzhanski (he was an evolutionist), Mankind Evolving, Yale Univ. Press, 1962, p168.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

Gee, why do you suppose that they're all evolutionists? Why do you suppose that they all rely on the fossil record?

Could it be because you're quoting them out of context?

[technomage]

TO: Snarf

You wrote:



Please no off topic unsupported accusations.

If you'd like this thread clear of "off topic unsupported accusations," you might start by asking the moderators to remove the OP.

[Hitch]

LOL Personal attacks dressed up like science. Desperation in drag. Somebody might think your religious dogma had been called into question.

[Snarf]

LOL Personal attacks dressed up like science. Desperation in drag. Somebody might think your religious dogma had been called into question.

Hardly desperation, considering how bad your impotent YEC/ID god gets buttwhumped in court by the ACLU. There's a reason why 99% of scientists are evolutionists.

[Hitch]

Hardly desperation, considering how bad your impotent YEC/ID god gets buttwhumped in court by the ACLU. There's a reason why 99% of scientists are evolutionists.

This is your detailed refutation of the text in question?

But thanx I wanst aware that the ACLU is a scientific organization.