Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu

AtomicHorror: While I was in the process of preparing this response, the thread was closed for some reason, so I thought I would open another thread with the same title for your response. I guess everyone else will have to wait until the thread is reopened. Pahu.

"If I can't imagine it, it must be a lie."

Where does that quote come from?

You talk about the scientific method, but you reckon gaps in evidence constitute the falsification of a model. That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of the scientific method right there. Models are falsified by positive evidence. By consistent and reproducible data that does not fit the model.

But doesn’t the evolution model require the existence of transitional forms in the fossil record? Darwin certainly thought so:

“But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

“... the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. 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 [of evolution].” Ibid., p. 323.

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

If there were no gaps in what we know, why would we need models?

Models are useful. The point is the evolution model requires transitional forms, which are missing:

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record.

“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. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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 a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

taram

We do have transitional forms, not as many as anyone would like, but they do exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Please go take a few credits of evolutionary biology, then come back to me. Bye now.

The Mad Hatter

taram wrote: »

We do have transitional forms, not as many as anyone would like, but they do exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Please go take a few credits of evolutionary biology, then come back to me. Bye now.

I thought all fossils were transitional forms, in that every life form is changing constantly?

taram

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I thought all fossils were transitional forms, in that every life form is changing constantly?

Well techincally, which the very rare exceptions of true living fossils, like the gingko tree. Creationists usually take it to being that there's Ape Ancestor X, then Ape Y, and Human Z, no Ape Ancestor XY, or Ape Ancestor YZ leading into Ape Y and Human Z. They refer to the black and white of the fossil record, not the grey that takes up most of it

Deicida

the progression of single-celled organisms to multi-celled is not linear. Multi-cell organisms came about from single-cells aggregating into a colony by sharing their cell walls. Oh and you might want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplococcus

Dades

Pahu, the thread was closed because it doesn't belong in this forum.

There is a long running thread in Christianity forum (here) discussing this subject. People who know about real science still go in there and address points, though for the life of me I don't know why.

You're welcome to post in A&A as long as it's relevant, but do NOT reopen another thread after one has been closed.