Half of US Doesn't believe Evolution

[SirSaxa]

It is both interesting and ironic to note that a thread entitled "Half of US Doesn't believe Evolution" has "devolved" into a lengthy dispute about an issue on which the overwhelming majority of scientists completely agree.

[hifigator]

Aug 26, 2008 16:52:20 GMT -5 hoya9797 said:

Aug 26, 2008 16:00:38 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Secondly, evolution on the macro scale especially, is foundationally based on millions and millions of small, almost imperceptible mutations happening over and over, for a long, long time. The lack of progressive fossil records that detail such systemantic progressions certainly casts some degree of doubt. For you to just dismiss that issue because the "fossil record is incomplete," and because you can take a stargazers view of certain fossils and create your own chain requires a degree of faith on your part. Maybe you are right, maybe not, but you can't deny that much. (well, you can, you deny everything that doesn't fit with your own views, but honestly reasonable people won't)

How many times do you need to be shown examples of transitional fossils before you'll stop claiming they don't exist?

You are still missing the point. What must happen for the macro theory is a chain from one distinct specie to another. If every specie evolved from an original simple organism, then there would need to be literally millions and millions of chains. The very absence of one clear and undeniable chain certainly calls into question the theory. What the author of the paper that 9797 referenced said, by his own admission, was an interpretation of a handful of fossil which could have developed in the manner he suggested, although, once again, by his own admission, it was more likely that the assorted fossils that we do have actually evolved from a common ancestor -- which we have yet to discover. Once again the chain is created with a large degree of literary freedom, much the same way Orion the Hunter was created by star gazers with a bunch of extra time on their hands thousands of years ago.

[The Stig]

Aug 27, 2008 11:20:41 GMT -5 hifigator said:

You are still missing the point. What must happen for the macro theory is a chain from one distinct specie to another. If every specie evolved from an original simple organism, then there would need to be literally millions and millions of chains. The very absence of one clear and undeniable chain certainly calls into question the theory. What the author of the paper that 9797 referenced said, by his own admission, was an interpretation of a handful of fossil which could have developed in the manner he suggested, although, once again, by his own admission, it was more likely that the assorted fossils that we do have actually evolved from a common ancestor -- which we have yet to discover. Once again the chain is created with a large degree of literary freedom, much the same way Orion the Hunter was created by star gazers with a bunch of extra time on their hands thousands of years ago.

Simply not true. You're acting like every creature that has ever lived was fossilized. The simple fact is that the extreme majority of organisms that have lived on this planet left absolutely zero trace of their existence. Fossils only exist for a tiny minority of creatures, and of all those fossils only a tiny minority have been discovered and analyzed by professionals.

So you're never going to get a complete chain in a fossil record, simply because most of the creatures in that complete chain were never fossilized. Instead, you'll get tiny glimpses of the past, and have to come up with a story that fits those tiny glimpses.

That story may be right or it may be wrong, and it certainly won't be complete. But that doesn't change the underlying fact that evolution happened. Again, it's the concept versus the details. You can get the sequence of evolution or the details of X evolving into Y and not Z wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution happened.

Here's an analogy: You're trying to trace the history of a person, so you go into their attic and find a box of old shirts. You find a shirt that fits a 5 year old, a shirt that fits a teenager, a couple college shirts, and some shirts from adult life. From that you can tell part of his life story, although you can't fill in every detail. You might even get some of the details wrong. If the college age shirts say 'Florida' on them, you might assume he went to Florida, when in reality he went to Maryland and was just a Florida fan. But that doesn't change the fact that the person existed and grew up. Just because you don't have a shirt from when he was a baby doesn't mean he never was a baby. You can't rationally expect to find every single shirt he ever wore, since he probably threw the majority of them out.

[SFHoya99]

On you might find record of him posting 3,500 times on a Hoya board, and assume he's a Georgetown fan or otherwise affiliated.

You'd be wrong about that, too.

[hifigator]

Stig, you make some good points. When I said a chain, I didn't mean to suggest that there would be a fossil record of every single creature, or even a chain for every single progression, but you would think that at some point, in the right conditions, we would have record of a very identifiable evolutionary chain, rather than the random links that we have now. It is very reasonable to assume that those chains are out there, but that we simply haven't discovered them yet. It's also quite possible that we are in the process of building such a chain, but admittedly have holes to fill. In any case, it does make for some interesting discussion, and at least you are presenting reasonable discourse and debate, unlike certain others whose only retort is "no you're wrong ..."

SF, I'll give you a B+ for that effort.

[hifigator]

Here is a paper that details some of the issues we have been debating:

www.geocities.com/dpatrickwood/evolution.html


I can understand the inherent difficulty in attempting to discover intermediate forms. My problem concerns the methodology of science: If an evolutionist accepts gaps as a prerequisite for his theory, is he not arguing from a lack of evidence? If a biologist teaches that between two existing fossils there was a non-existing third (and perhaps several others), is he not really like the man of religious faith who says: “I believe, even though there is not evidence?” (In Bioscience, volume 28, “Biologists, Help!”)

[hifigator]

Incidentally, as I have repeatedly said, my point all along is simply that macro-evolution is frequently taught alongside micro-evolution as if they are both facts, when in point of fact, macro-evolution requires a large degree of faith. Secondly, many of these same issues which I have singled out are acknowledged as difficult issues. I don't put as much stock into the author's work, as his agenda is relatively clear. What I do point to are the numerous quotes from evolutionists and even scientists in related fields. As I have pointed out all along, they recognize the difficult questions. Why is it so hard for Bando to do the same?

[Bando]

and at least you are presenting reasonable discourse and debate, unlike certain others whose only retort is "no you're wrong ..."

Um, Stig started his post with "Simply not true". I believe we're both saying you're wrong.

Here is a paper that details some of the issues we have been debating:

The most prestigious journal of science in the land: Geocities.

Incidentally, as I have repeatedly said, my point all along is simply that macro-evolution is frequently taught alongside micro-evolution as if they are both facts, when in point of fact, macro-evolution requires a large degree of faith. Secondly, many of these same issues which I have singled out are acknowledged as difficult issues. I don't put as much stock into the author's work, as his agenda is relatively clear. What I do point to are the numerous quotes from evolutionists and even scientists in related fields. As I have pointed out all along, they recognize the difficult questions. Why is it so hard for Bando to do the same?

Again, your conclusion does not represent the opinion of the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists. Where the hell are you coming up with this?

You're conclusions are wrong because you're basing them on things that are not true. It's not unreasonable to disagree with lies.

[hifigator]

Bando, you're not even close on this one. Stig started with "simply not true" alright. The difference is he didn't end with it as you do. You just say "you're not right." Stig went on to give reasoning why a fossil record might never be complete. That is a valid point to a degree. But it is also valid to wonder just why we haven't found an macro-evolutionary progressive chain somewhere, given all the efforts that have gone into doing so. As many of the quotes given in the link I posted suggest, the inability to continue building the fossil record to answer more questions than it asks has been somewhat disheartening. Yet you deny even that much. You are just being stubborn.

Then of course you follow with yet another shooting of the messenger, by discounting something totally because it came from Geocities, yet I have a hunch that if someone posts something from moveon.org, you would accept it wholeheartedly.

[hifigator]

I finally found the link I have been looking for. This is the best to illustrate my point, which as I have stated is simply that there are legitimate questions to ask and some uncertainties which simply give some degree of doubt to macroevolutionary theory:


The Only Direct Evidence

CARL DUNBAR , Yale Univ. "Although the comparative study of living animals and
plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only
historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more
complex forms." <HISTORICAL GEOLOGY>, p. 47

S. M. STANLEY , Johns Hopkins Univ., "It is doubtful whether, in the absence of
fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous
hypothesis....The fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of
major sequential changes in the Earth's biota."< NEW EVOLUTIONARY
TIMETABLE>, 1981, p.72

<IN THEIR "BEGINNING". Sudden; Complex; Diverse; Every Animal Phylum;
Assumed History Missing>

STEPHEN GOULD , Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of
you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which
essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first
appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil
record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990

PRESTON CLOUD & MARTIN F. GLAESSNER , "Ever since Darwin, the geologically
abrupt appearance and rapid diversification of early animal life have fascinated
biologist and students of Earth history alike....This interval, plus Early Cambrian, was
the time during which metazoan life diversified into nearly all of the major phyla and
most of the invertebrate classes and orders subsequently known." <SCIENCE>, Aug.27,
1982

RICHARD MONASTERSKY , Earth Science Ed., Science News, "The remarkably
complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared....This moment, right at the
start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the
seas with the earth's first complex creatures....'This is Genesis material,' gushed one
researcher....demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in
the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a
menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that
would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." <Discover>, p.40, 4/93

RICHARD DAWKINS , Cambridge, "And we find many of them already in an
advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were
just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance
of sudden planting has delighted creationists....the only alternative explanation of the
sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine
creation...", <THE BLIND WATCHMAKER>, 1986, p229-230

H.S. LADD, UCLA , "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous
rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all.
Indeed the missing PreCambrian record cannot properly he described as a link for it is
in reality, about ninetenths of the chain of life: the first ninetenths.", <Geo. So. of Am.
Mem>. 1967, Vol.II, p.7

PERCY E. RAYMOND , Prof. of Paleontology, Harvard, "It is evidence that the oldest
Cambrian fauna is diversified and not so simple, perhaps, as the evolutionists would
hope to find it. Instead of being composed chiefly of protozoa's, it contains no
representatives of that phylum but numerous members of seven higher groups are
present, a fact which shows that the greater part of the major differentiation of animals
had already taken place in those ancient times.", <PREHISTORIC LIFE>, 1967 p.23

<TREES & FISH IN CAMBRIAN>

JOHN E. REPETSKI , U.S. Geological Survey, "The oldest land plants now known are
from the Early Cambrian... Approximately 60 Cambrian sporegenera are now on record
....represent 6 different groups of vascular plants...", <Evolution>, Vol. 13, June '59,
p.264-275

DANIEL I. AXELROD , UCLA, "This report of fish material from Upper Cambrian
rocks further extends the record of the vertebrates by approximately 40 million years."
[WY, OK, WA, NV, ID, AR] <Science>, Vol. 200, 5 May, 1978, p.529

<"TREES" Contradicted By Fossils, From SOME SIMILARITIES, Ignoring Others>

SEPARATE LIVING KINDS , STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Harvard, "Our modern phyla
represent designs of great distinctness, yet our diverse world contains nothing in
between sponges, corals, insects, snails, sea urchins, and fishes (to choose standard
representatives of the most prominent phyla).", <Natural History>, p.15, Oct. 1990

SEPARATE FOSSIL KINDS , Valentine (U. CA) & Erwin (MI St.), "If we were to expect
to find ancestors to or intermediates between higher taxa, it would be the rocks of the
late Precambrian to Ordovician times, when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa
evolved. Yet traditional alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or
classes appearing then.", <Development As An Evolutionary Process>, p.84, 1987.

"TREES" NOT FROM FOSSILS , S. J. GOULD, Harvard, "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 the fossils.", <Nat. His>., V.86, p.13

STORY TIME , COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Nat.
History, "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or
organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line-there is not one such fossil for which one
could make a watertight argument." "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one
form gave rise to another. ... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way
of putting them to the test. ... I don't think we shall ever have any access to any form of
tree which we can call factual."< HARPER'S>, Feb. 1984, p.56

ARBITRARY ARRANGEMENT , R.H. DOTT, U. of Wis. & R.L. BATTEN, Columbia
U., A.M.N.H., "We have arranged the groups in a traditional way with the 'simplest'
forms first, and progressively more complex groups following. This particular
arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of 'complexity' you wish to
choose. ...things are alike because they are related, and the less they look alike, the
further removed they are from their common ancestor." <EVOLUTION OF THE
EARTH>, p.602

UNRELATED LOOKALIKES , J.Z. YOUNG, Prof. of Anatomy, Oxford, "....similar
features repeatedly appear in distinct lines. ...Parallel evolution is so common that it is
almost a rule that detailed study of any group produces a confused taxonomy.
Investigators are unable to distinguish populations that are parallel new developments
from those truly descended from each other." <LIFE OF THE VERTEBRATES>, p.779

INTERPRETATION OF SIMILARITY , T.H. MORGAN Prof. Zoology, Columbia,
Univ., "If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of
the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both
have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy
seems to tumble in ruins.", <SCI. MO.,> 16;3;237, p.216

NONGENETIC SIMILARITY , SIR GAVIN DEBEER, Prof. Embry., U. London,
Director BMNH, "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the
inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology
was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The
attempt to find homologous genes has been given up as hopeless." Oxford Biology
Reader, p.16,< HOMOLOGY AN UNSOLVED PROBLEM>

EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION? , Ashley Montagu, "The theory of recapitulation
was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no
respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly
unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.",< Montagu-Gish Prinston
Debate, 4/12/1980>

<Significant Change Is Not Observed>

BOTHERSOM DISTRESS , STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, Lecture at Hobart &
William Smith College, 14/2/1980. "Every paleontologist knows that most species don't
change. That's bothersome....brings terrible distress. ...They may get a little bigger or
bumpier but they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps
but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they
don't change, its not evolution so you don't talk about it."

DESIGNS , S.J. GOULD, Harvard, "We can tell tales of improvement for some groups,
but in honest moments we must admit that the history of complex life is more a story of
multifarious variation about a set of basic designs than a saga of accumulating
excellence....I regard the failure to find a clear 'vector of progress' in life's history as the
most puzzling fact of the fossil record....we have sought to impose a pattern that we
hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.", <Natural His>., 2/82, p.22

<Required Transitional Forms Missing>

DARWIN'S BIGGEST PROBLEM , "....innumerable transitional forms must have
existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of
the earth? ....why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated
organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my
theory". <ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES>.

MORE EMBARRASSING , DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of
N.H., "The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with
darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of
this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he
predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the
knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a
million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even
fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean
that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the
evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the
result of more detailed information." <F.M.O.N.H.B>., Vol.50, p.35

GOOD RECORD-BAD PREDICTION , NILES ELIDRIDGE, Columbia Univ.,
American Museum of Nat. Hist., "He [Darwin] 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 was wrong."
<The Myths of Human Evolution>, p.45-46

<Proposed Links "Debunked">

<THE HORSE "STORY",> COLIN PATTERSON, Senior Paleontologist British Museum
of Natural History, <Harper's>, p. 60, 1984. "There have been an awful lot of stories,
some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really
is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse
evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth
in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the
people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative
nature of some of that stuff."

STORY TIME OVER , DEREK AGER, Univ. at Swansea, Wales, "It must be significant
that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been
'debunked.' Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for
evolutionary lineage's among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally
elusive.",< PROC. GEOL. ASSO>., Vol.87, p.132

<"FOSSIL BIRD SHAKES EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS">, <Nature>, Vol. 322,
1986 p.677, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crowsized birds 75 million years older
than Archaeopteryx have been found. ...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who
found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tends to confirm what
many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line
to modern birds."

REPTILE TO BIRD W.E. SWINTON, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of
deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable
change from reptile to bird was achieved."< BIOLOGY & COMPARATIVE
PHYSIOLOGY OF BIRDS> Vol. 1, p.1.

<Systematic Gaps>

ORDERS, CLASSES, & PHYLA , GEORGE GAYLORD SIMPSON, Harvard, "Gaps
among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders,
classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large.", <EVOLUTION OF LIFE>,
p. 149

GENUINE KNOWLEDGE , D.B. KITTS, University of Oklahoma, "Despite the bright
promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented
some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of
'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
paleontology does not provide them... The 'fact that discontinuities are almost always
and <systematically> present at the origin of really big categories' is an item of
genuinely historical knowledge.",< Evolution>, Vol. 28, p. 467

NOT ONE ! D.S. WOODROFF, Univ. of CA, San Diego, "But fossil species remain
unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single
example of a significant transition."< Science>, Vol.208, 1980, p.716

EVIDENCE A MATTER OF FAITH , A.C. SEWARD, Cambridge, <PLANT LIFE
THROUGH THE AGES>, p.561, "The theoretically primitive type eludes our grasp; our
faith postulates its existence but the type fails to materialize."

"WE KNEW BETTER" , NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum Of
Natural History, "And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been
most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that
the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while
knowing that it does not.", <TIME FRAMES>, 1986, p.144

<Punctuated Equilibrium>

<Unobserved imagined scenario to explain missing evidence, based on fossils not
found, mechanisms not observed>

"UNEMBARRASSED" , GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary
on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several
paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had
previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven t found any
evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted) "The occurrences of long sequences within species
are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such
sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed
transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of
microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted) "During my work as an oil
paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid
requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the
watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show
any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first
occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established."
<Paleobiology>, Vol.3, p.136

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM , S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. "The record now
reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a
million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most
evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a
natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to
study them in small, localized, transitory populations. ...The point here is that if the
transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of
the event would never be found.", <New Evolutionary Timetable>, 1981 pp.77, 110

PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM? COLIN PATTERSON, British Mus. of N. H., "Well,
it seems to me that they have accepted that the fossil record doesn't give them the
support they would value so they searched around to find another model and found
one. ...When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack of
evidence. ", Quoted in: <DARWIN'S ENIGMA>, p. 100

INAPPLICABLE TO "KINDS" , Valentine (Univ. of CA) & Erwin (MI St. Univ), "We
conclude that...neither of the contending theories of evolutionary change at the species
level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of
new body plans.", <Development As An Evolutionary Process>, p.96, 1987.

<Implication Of The Fossils>

PALEONTOLOGY DOES NOT PROVE EVOLUTION , D.B. KITTS, University of
Oklahoma, "The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the
major events of organic history and that, furthermore, it provides a means of testing
evolutionary theories....the paleontologist can provide knowledge that cannot be
provided by biological principles alone. But he cannot provide us with evolution.",<
Evolution>, Vol.28, p.466

DON'T USE THE FOSSILS , MARK RIDLEY, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not
know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main
evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In
any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil
record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."
<New Scientist>, June, 1981, p.831

FOSSILS INDICATE CREATION! E.J.H. CORNOR, Cambridge "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." <CONTEMPORARY BOTANICAL THOUGHT>, p.61 <HR>

[Boz]

Sorry, hifi, but the only way I'm going to read an Internet post that long is if it's about Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje's footwork.
;D

[hifigator]

At the risk of overwhelming you with quotes from reputable individuals that support what I have been saying:

Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we should be able to find millions, if not hundreds of millions, of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.

It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and human beings that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps were enormous. Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links "included every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from bacteria to bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibians—living partly in the sea and partly on land—and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans" (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253).

However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation for the earth's many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a matter of time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill in the many gaps. His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was that scientists hadn't looked long enough and hadn't looked in the right places. Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove his view. "The explanation lies, I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record," he wrote (p. 261).

He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill in the abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was based were missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds of thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and cataloged and with few corners of the globe unexplored, what does the fossil record show?

What the record reveals

David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized, stating: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found— yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, July 1981, p. 289, emphasis added).

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support the traditional evolutionary view.

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," he writes. "It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.

"When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95, emphasis added).

After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the "missing links" Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still missing.

The late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today's best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognized that the fossil record fundamentally conflicted with Darwin's idea of gradualism.

"The history of most fossil species," he wrote, "includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one species to another]:

"[1] Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional [evolutionary] change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical or structural] 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'" ("Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14, emphasis added).

[hifigator]

Aug 27, 2008 14:21:07 GMT -5 Boz said:

Sorry, hifi, but the only way I'm going to read an Internet post that long is if it's about Ruben Boumtje-Boumtje's footwork.
;D

You don't really have to read the post. Skimming will work fine. All I was doing was pointing out that many a reputable individual recognize the very issues that we have been debating as being legitimate questions. Bando seems steadfastly against recognizing any such questions and keeps saying that I am just "wrong" to even ask them.

[hifigator]

Here is a pretty objective look:

www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number5/darwin5.htm


There is something to be said for both of our arguments.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

There are a lot of reasons that I've pointed out in the past for why the fossil record is incomplete:

1) not everything gets fossilized only a small fraction of species and members of those species have become fossilized
2) not everywhere is accessable to look for fossils. A lot of land is now covered by oceans and buildings. Other areas are just inaccessable to archaeological digs. It's not like we've looked everywhere and haven't found any links.
3) even if fossils have been created they don't last forever. Rocks and fossils get broken down over the years so every fossil ever created isn't still around to be discovered.

[hifigator]

Aug 27, 2008 16:05:09 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

There are a lot of reasons that I've pointed out in the past for why the fossil record is incomplete:

1) not everything gets fossilized only a small fraction of species and members of those species have become fossilized
2) not everywhere is accessable to look for fossils. A lot of land is now covered by oceans and buildings. Other areas are just inaccessable to archaeological digs. It's not like we've looked everywhere and haven't found any links.
3) even if fossils have been created they don't last forever. Rocks and fossils get broken down over the years so every fossil ever created isn't still around to be discovered.

Those are all valid points, and could certainly help explain what fossil record we have now. But that isn't the same thing as Bando's silliness. He flatly says that the fossil record does fully support both micro and macro evolution, it just isn't complete yet. All I am trying to get him to understand is that there is some degree of uncertainty due to, among other things, a questionable/incomplete/inconclusive fossil record. And I illustrate this with a plethora of quotes from reputable sources, many of which are evolutionists that promote the theory.

[Bando]

Those are all valid points, and could certainly help explain what fossil record we have now. But that isn't the same thing as Bando's silliness. He flatly says that the fossil record does fully support both micro and macro evolution, it just isn't complete yet. All I am trying to get him to understand is that there is some degree of uncertainty due to, among other things, a questionable/incomplete/inconclusive fossil record. And I illustrate this with a plethora of quotes from reputable sources, many of which are evolutionists that promote the theory.

That's not at all what I said. What I said was that the fossil record is not the only evidence we have for macroevolution.

[hifigator]

Bando, I am open for reason. What other evidence supports macroevolution?

And from your most recent post, it sounds like you are finally recognizing what I have said all along, that being that the fossil record isn't the "open and closed book" evidence for macroevolution that some wrongly suggest. For the last time, NEVER have I said that macroevolution didn't take place, just that right now we don't really know and have just formulated some ideas that might explain specie variation, but right now the fossil evidence doesn't really give indication either way.

[GIGAFAN99]

This is ridiculous. Let's say evolution isn't right. It sure doesn't mean creationism is or can be supported by any facts.

This is what bugs me about these arguments. It's like getting a shoebox-sized birthday gift and saying "Oh it's shoes." Then you shake it and it jingles. Now it can't be shoes so you say "Oh it must be a pony."

It takes non-logic to the incredible new heights: Absence of evidence supporting part of another theory validates my completely unsupported hypothesis.

[Bando]

Aug 27, 2008 16:51:36 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Bando, I am open for reason. What other evidence supports macroevolution?

And from your most recent post, it sounds like you are finally recognizing what I have said all along, that being that the fossil record isn't the "open and closed book" evidence for macroevolution that some wrongly suggest. For the last time, NEVER have I said that macroevolution didn't take place, just that right now we don't really know and have just formulated some ideas that might explain specie variation, but right now the fossil evidence doesn't really give indication either way.

Jeebus Allah Buddah! I linked to it in a previous post! You're familiar with the concept of linking, are you not? Oh wait, I can see from your text dump above that you don't. In any case, here it is again:

TalkOrigins - 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Furthermore, you're distorting both mine and your positions in this thread. I never said that the fossil record is the "open and closed book" evidence for macroevolution, only that your criticisms in this regard were not based in fact. As for you, saying that macroevolution requires faith doesn't exactly sound like the cries of a supporter.

Really, all you're doing here is concern trolling, and along with the multitudes of stawmen you've constructed here, this is really getting annoying. These dishonest and illogical debate techniques might work on the rubes at the Florida boards, but it's not going over well here.