Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

David Raup is as pro-evolution as the others. But he was forced to admit that the fossils record does not show any creatures evolving from something entirely different. Not only that, even when variations of the same species showed up, they were not considered an improvement over those that had preceded them. According to evolution theory, the newer arrivals are supposed to be improvements over their predecesors; remember? Raup's comment above says there is no evidence of that in the fossils record. And he's on your side of the evolution debate.

Still no. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have not "failed." In the 150 years since On The Origin Of Species was published, and even in the 40 years or so since Gould and Eldredge's ideas were published, fossils have been found in abundance, and all contributed to the developing theory of evolution as it is today.
David Raup was concerned with the mechanism of mass extinction, and the part played by chance. The extinction of pterosaurs, reptiles supremely well adapted to their environment, and the time it took for birds to replace then in their ecological niche, was a case in point. He realised that birds could not have evolved from pterosaurs, and speculated that a sudden change of environment had rendered them extinct, so that their replacements had to evolve from less well adapted animals, in a remarkably short time. In a loose sense, it is certainly true that early birds were not improvements on pterosaurs from an aerial point of view, but they were great improvements on the species from which they evolved.

As we have seen, your understanding of the details of evolution is not sufficiently strong to persuade those of us who know a bit more about it that it doesn't work. However, it may be that your understanding of the details of creation is more your strength, so why not try to tell us a little more about that?

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:

Still yes. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have ALL failed.(See how easy that was for me to do what you did above in reverse?) In other words, your refusal to face reality is meaningless considering that the very same pro-evolution scientists you are relying on were quoted as saying the following regarding Charles Darwin's failed predictions. (Notice the various people that I have already quoted in this thread.)


MY FIRST POST ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=15

1. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)


2. "As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate 'transitional' forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

MY 4TH POST ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=15

4. "Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.).

MY 2ND POST ON PAGE 6 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 9&start=75

3. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


4. "He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....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." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

MY 4TH POST ON PAGE 10 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=135

5. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Even after I quoted Darwin speculating about bears evolving from whales--from his own science fiction book, Origin of Species-- you tried to talk your way around that, as noted below:

THE VERY LAST POST ON PAGE 9 OF THIS THREAD:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120

In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered , by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
(SOURCE: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species; Chapter 6, p. 184)

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

[PaulSacramento]

As a skeptic of evolution, I gotta agree with these guys Alter2Ego. You're not providing very convincing arguments. Just because some predictions of the theory when it was first conceived have been modified, doesn't show the theory fails. I'm not sure there are any arguments that show the theory fails. Rather multiple problems that require extrordinary explanations which cast doubt. So careful not to talk in absolutes, like: "thus the theory of evolution is false". We just can't say that. In the same way, you wouldn't find it convincing if an atheist told you: "thus, there is no god".

Don't worry, I'm not very good at providing convincing arguments either

The current theory of evolution is far different than Darwin's.
The biggest issue of evolution is the PROCESS of natural selection, far more than any "issue" raised here.
I would add that perhaps the other issue is that "random mutations" may not be a as random as was once thought ( still debatable though).

[hughfarey]

Still yes. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have ALL failed.(See how easy that was for me to do what you did above in reverse?) In other words, your refusal to face reality is meaningless considering that the very same pro-evolution scientists you are relying on were quoted as saying the following regarding Charles Darwin's failed predictions. (Notice the various people that I have already quoted in this thread.)

It is easy enough simply to disagree with each other, I agree. However, I have tried to explain why I disagree with your basic contention that transitional forms are missing from the fossil record. You are at liberty to say that you don't think there are sufficient; you are at liberty to say that they do not represent independent species, but to deny that they exist at all is unreasonable. (Of course, you are at liberty to be unreasonable too, if you like, but that's not very scientific, is it?).

All the scientists you quote regret that there aren't more fossils to help with their evolutionary ideas, and would no doubt be delighted with the finds that have been made since they wrote their books/articles (mostly more than 30 years ago).

And please, go back to the whales/bears thing. "Even after I quoted Darwin speculating about bears evolving from whales..." Darwin speculated that whales might have come from bears, not the other way about, as you have persistently misread.

Then there's "Anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so." Do you think that I really think that, or that I want you to think that? If so, you have misread everything I have written in this thread. My personal beliefs, and those of everybody else, including yourself, are worth nothing unless they are backed up by evidence. Earlier in this thread I mentioned "The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations" by Jennifer A Clack as an excellent introduction to the transitional stages between fish and amphibian, and I'd like to suggest "Hooking Leviathan By Its Past" by Stephen J Gould as a superb account of the evolution of whales, complete with gentle but firm rebuttals of traditional creationist beliefs on the subject.

Now, have you any evidence at all for your interpretation of God's working out of his grand design? Is it just the book of Genesis? Would you care to discuss the alternatives I suggested earlier?
a) God spontaneously and miraculous altered the DNA of a zygote or two of Species A, which was gestated and hatched (or born) as Species D
b) Every member of Species A was suddenly annihilated, and the chemicals from which they were made immediately replaced by an equivalent population of Species D
c) Every member of Species A died childless, and God create some Species D from nothing, who then expanded to repopulate the ecological niche vacated by Species A
If you don't care for them, would you like me to suggest others? If I were a Creationist, I'd come up with a lot of scientific ideas about how it might have occurred. Why can't you?

[SonofAletheia]

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

Wow..Calm down Alter2Ego. There is no need for the attitude when responding

Are the mods seeing this?

[Alter2Ego]

Still yes. Darwin's predictions, and those of Gould and Eldredge have ALL failed.(See how easy that was for me to do what you did above in reverse?) In other words, your refusal to face reality is meaningless considering that the very same pro-evolution scientists you are relying on were quoted as saying the following regarding Charles Darwin's failed predictions. (Notice the various people that I have already quoted in this thread.)

It is easy enough simply to disagree with each other, I agree. However, I have tried to explain why I disagree with your basic contention that transitional forms are missing from the fossil record. You are at liberty to say that you don't think there are sufficient; you are at liberty to say that they do not represent independent species, but to deny that they exist at all is unreasonable. (Of course, you are at liberty to be unreasonable too, if you like, but that's not very scientific, is it?).

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
Don't try to make it seem it is me that you are really disagreeing with. This is not about me but about your rejection of the Genesis creation account.

Truth be told, you are actually disagreeing with the same people who insist, on one side of their faces, that evolution theory is valid. On the other side of their faces, they admit the fossils record does not contain actual evidence to support their speculations. There is nothing scientific about speculations.

[Alter2Ego]

All the scientists you quote regret that there aren't more fossils to help with their evolutionary ideas, and would no doubt be delighted with the finds that have been made since they wrote their books/articles (mostly more than 30 years ago).

ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:
They would be delighted with what? With the fact that nothing concrete has been found in the fossils to prove what they claimed after all these years?

Then there's "Anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so." Do you think that I really think that, or that I want you to think that? If so, you have misread everything I have written in this thread. My personal beliefs, and those of everybody else, including yourself, are worth nothing unless they are backed up by evidence. Earlier in this thread I mentioned "The Fish-Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations" by Jennifer A Clack as an excellent introduction to the transitional stages between fish and amphibian, and I'd like to suggest "Hooking Leviathan By Its Past" by Stephen J Gould as a superb account of the evolution of whales, complete with gentle but firm rebuttals of traditional creationist beliefs on the subject.

You have not quoted anything from what Jennifer Clack or Stephen Gould wrote, much less have you presented evidence of fossils that link up different creatures with actual bones. Throughout this thread you have simply told me that I am wrong and that my quotations are taken out of context. Please prove your claims by quoting your sources for a change.

[Alter2Ego]

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

Wow..Calm down Alter2Ego. There is no need for the attitude when responding

Are the mods seeing this?

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
I didn't see you complaining about attitude when you thought you had science on your side, including your claims about "375 million year old fossils" that miraculously changed from fish to land-dwelling amphibians. And where are you getting the idea I am not calm? I call it as I see it, fella. This is how I express myself wherever I debate. You will note that I am not hollering at anyone or resorting to insults or foul language.

At one point when I was responding to hughfarey, you complained that I was getting an attitude with you. I was responding to hughfarey and I made it clear by prefacing my response with: "ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:"

I will most likely not be responding to you again after this, now that I see that you like to holler for moderator assistance. If there is one thing I can't take, it's a sore loser.

[hughfarey]

There is nothing scientific about speculations.

Oh, but there is! It is impossible for scientists simply to gather evidence at random and then hope to turn it into a better refined view of the world than they had before. Speculation is absolutely the root of scientific inquiry. It leads to questions, which in turn lead to a directed inquiry, and the collection of relevant evidence. I notice on another thread that you are a Jehovah's Witness. In the absence of any information about what you believe then, I have turned to that excellent publication "Was Life Created?" which is published by Jehovah's Witnesses. In it, we find that the 'days' of Genesis are not to be taken literally, and that a belief in a 4 billion year old earth is not incompatible with Genesis. We then discover that the Sun was created even before the first day, but that its light was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. These clouds thinned enough on the first day for light to reach the earth, and then on the fourth day enough for the sun to have been visible. From start to finish this is speculation, but there's nothing wrong with that. It leads to further inquiry. In the bible as published on jw.org, we learn that on the third day: "the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind." Sadly, neither the Bible nor Was Life Created suggest how these plants were pollinated. Fruit trees tend to be insect pollinated, and many of their flowers are very unsuitable for wind pollination, so this statement implies that insects had been created beforehand. Nothing wrong with that. Except that "every winged thing according to its kind" were not created until the fifth day, which to me seems a bit of a contradiction. Do I misunderstand? Can you clarify?

quoting your sources for a change.

Well, as you have discovered, there's a danger of being accused of quoting out of context if you do that, but, for what it's worth, here's a go. From Gould.

Darwin experienced most embarrassment from the following passage, curtailed and largely expunged from later additions of his book: In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

Recognise it? Actually there was nothing wrong with such speculation, but he obviously knew that he had no evidence for his idea, and that alternative scenarios were equally possible.

Just two years after penning his bear-to-whale tale, Darwin lamented to a friend (letter to James Lamont, February 25, 1861), “It is laughable how often I have been attacked and misrepresented about this bear."

Bear to whale, notice; not whale to bear.

Paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy.

Not exactly the point of view you thought was demonstrated by your own quote from Gould, is it?

Every creationist book on my shelf actually cites the absence of and inherent inconceivability of transitional forms between terrestrial mammals and whales.

We're getting there. Gould quotes Alan Haywood ("A land mammal that was in the process of becoming a whale would fall between two stools — it would not be fitted for life on land or at sea, and would have no hope for survival") and Duane Gish ("There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and there supposed land mammal ancestors") as well as Of Pandas And People.

During the past fifteen years, new discoveries in Africa and Pakistan have greatly added to our paleontological knowledge of the earliest history of whales. The embarrassment of past absence has been replaced by a bounty of new evidence — and by the sweetest series of transitional fossils an evolutionist could ever hope to find.

And off he goes, to describe Pakicetus, Basilosaurus, Indocetus and Ambulocetus, in four elegant case studies of the evolution of the whale from the hippo.

And while I'm at it, what about this?

A remarkably completeset of transitions was also found between the land-living ancestorsof the whales and their aquatic descendants. These fossils document that whales are derived from ungulates (mesonychidcondylarthra) that increasingly became adapted to life in water.

It's from Ernst Mayr, whom you quoted earlier in support of the failure of transitional fossils. Doesn't look as though that was really his opinion, does it?

[SonofAletheia]

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

Wow..Calm down Alter2Ego. There is no need for the attitude when responding

Are the mods seeing this?

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
I didn't see you complaining about attitude when you thought you had science on your side, including your claims about "375 million year old fossils" that miraculously changed from fish to land-dwelling amphibians. And where are you getting the idea I am not calm? I call it as I see it, fella. This is how I express myself wherever I debate. You will note that I am not hollering at anyone or resorting to insults or foul language.

At one point when I was responding to hughfarey, you complained that I was getting an attitude with you. I was responding to hughfarey and I made it clear by prefacing my response with: "ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:"

I will most likely not be responding to you again after this, now that I see that you like to holler for moderator assistance. If there is one thing I can't take, it's a sore loser.

You haven't been responding to me for about a week now. So I wasn't expecting a reply

This discussion has been over since Ryan left. Unfortunate too, because he had some interesting views as a non-evolutionist

It's too bad. I've met with two Jehovah's Witnesses before and they were very nice people who actually listened and directly responded to statements

[ClassicalTeacher]

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

Wow..Calm down Alter2Ego. There is no need for the attitude when responding

Are the mods seeing this?

SonofAletheia: This is typical for A2E. Soon, she'll be claiming that everyone here is persecuting her or "mudslinging". Pleasse visit the forum where she just left. Here is the link to prove that she is NOT here for discussion:

1. (on the Trinity) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... ome-40902/

and:

2. (on evolution) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... yth-40983/

She's like a broken record....

[ClassicalTeacher]

In other words, anything that debunks your personal opinions are wrong because you say so. At this point, I am familiar with your routine: Deny, deny, and deny, while producing no quotations from any sources to back up your denials. Keep denying with your: "No, that's not true," routine since that apparently makes you feel good. It might earn you brownie points for getting the last word in edge wise, but it sure won't change reality about macroevolution myth.

Wow..Calm down Alter2Ego. There is no need for the attitude when responding

Are the mods seeing this?

ALTER2EGO -to- SON OF ALETHEIA:
I didn't see you complaining about attitude when you thought you had science on your side, including your claims about "375 million year old fossils" that miraculously changed from fish to land-dwelling amphibians. And where are you getting the idea I am not calm? I call it as I see it, fella. This is how I express myself wherever I debate. You will note that I am not hollering at anyone or resorting to insults or foul language.

At one point when I was responding to hughfarey, you complained that I was getting an attitude with you. I was responding to hughfarey and I made it clear by prefacing my response with: "ALTER2EGO -to- HUGH FAREY:"

I will most likely not be responding to you again after this, now that I see that you like to holler for moderator assistance. If there is one thing I can't take, it's a sore loser.

YOU'RE NOT DEBATING, YOU'RE PONTIFICATING. Want the dictionary definitions for those two words??

[SonofAletheia]

SonofAletheia: This is typical for A2E. Soon, she'll be claiming that everyone here is persecuting her or "mudslinging". Pleasse visit the forum where she just left. Here is the link to prove that she is NOT here for discussion:

1. (on the Trinity) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... ome-40902/

and:

2. (on evolution) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... yth-40983/

She's like a broken record....

She sounds like she has all the answers so there's no need for this discussion.

Looking at reviews for the Watchtower book LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is interesting. It seems to reflect much of Alter2Ego's false dichotomies, straw-men, and elementary knowledge of logic and argumentation.

EDIT: I noticed this part of a review, "The main problem with the book is the out-of-context quote-mining it does of prominent scientists in order to present the illusion that there is real dissent in the scientific community over evolution as fact."
Alter2Ego has done this from her first post. Now we know where she learned it

[hughfarey]

Friends, let's not give up on Alter2Ego. The doorway to some kind of redemption must be left open - that's Scientific redemption I mean there, as I've no reason to suppose that Alter2Ego is any further from God than I am myself. Although she claims never to open links and appears never to have read even her own literature with an inquiring mind, much may be going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. As a Jehovah's Witness, she is under a Biblical command to try to convert us to her point of view, which must have become a bit frustrating by now, after all those attempts at all those different forums. Trying to engage bodybuilders, guitar players or poker players in a discussion about hell seems to me somewhat foolhardy, so at least she's in the right place with her creation science. All she needs is a bit of guidance in how to conduct a debate really, and I think she's getting it here.

[ClassicalTeacher]

SonofAletheia: This is typical for A2E. Soon, she'll be claiming that everyone here is persecuting her or "mudslinging". Pleasse visit the forum where she just left. Here is the link to prove that she is NOT here for discussion:

1. (on the Trinity) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... ome-40902/

and:

2. (on evolution) http://www.republicanoperative.com/foru ... yth-40983/

She's like a broken record....

She sounds like she has all the answers so there's no need for this discussion.

Looking at reviews for the Watchtower book LIFE--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is interesting. It seems to reflect much of Alter2Ego's false dichotomies, straw-men, and elementary knowledge of logic and argumentation.

EDIT: I noticed this part of a review, "The main problem with the book is the out-of-context quote-mining it does of prominent scientists in order to present the illusion that there is real dissent in the scientific community over evolution as fact."
Alter2Ego has done this from her first post. Now we know where she learned it

Totally agree. I will check out the book you cited. Do I have to purchase it or is it online? The other thing I noticed from your post quoting the book is that the description of the 6 days of creation are totally unbiblical. There is absolutely nothing in any approved versions of the Scriptures which allude to this version. It is because the watchtower devotees re-wrote the bible the way THEY thought it should read--that is, in a way which supports their beliefs. I have met jws numerous times, too. Never have I ever experienced any jw as obstinately delusional as a2e.

[ClassicalTeacher]

Friends, let's not give up on Alter2Ego. The doorway to some kind of redemption must be left open - that's Scientific redemption I mean there, as I've no reason to suppose that Alter2Ego is any further from God than I am myself. Although she claims never to open links and appears never to have read even her own literature with an inquiring mind, much may be going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. As a Jehovah's Witness, she is under a Biblical command to try to convert us to her point of view, which must have become a bit frustrating by now, after all those attempts at all those different forums. Trying to engage bodybuilders, guitar players or poker players in a discussion about hell seems to me somewhat foolhardy, so at least she's in the right place with her creation science. All she needs is a bit of guidance in how to conduct a debate really, and I think she's getting it here.

You are truly much more compassionate than I am in this instant. I don't have patience with people who try to deceive--and that is what she has done in all these forums. And, she engages good people in debates with an ulterior agenda. I don't like that. I think it is dishonest and disrespectful. I do agree, however, that there is something seriously wrong with this lady. Anyone who has time on their hands to be prowling around the internet (when it is forbidden by jw rules--and if her superiors knew she was doing this, she'd be in BIG trouble) trying to pontificate her views on everyone, then crying foul because no one is buying her arguments, (aka: providing opposing views to hers), accusing these same people of "mudslinging" and persecuting her, is not worthy of anyone's sympathy. I think she deserves our prayers, but not our endless responses to her meaningless, puerile, and callow rants. In doing so, we are only fueling the fire. She must be a very lonely, bored woman because it seems to me that her only objective here (besides trying to point out everyone else's errors) is to engage people in pointless, unsophisticated, and childish gibberish dressed up to sound intelligent. It is plain to see that none of her arguments hold any water in either the "trinitarian conspiracy" or in the evolution vs. creationist threads. Yet she persists in using the same "arguments" over and over and over again. To me, that is an exercise is futility.