Dr Rick

It seems "problematic" for the creationists.
Dinosour and homonid fossils just don't seem to fit the stories in Genesis, and there is no other theory other than evolution that explains the fossil record, or animal genomes, or the geologic record.

What part of the fossil record do you believe contradicts evolution or is "problematic" for it?

randman

The reason I put "problematic" in quotes is this is how an evolutionist paleontologists described it.
The problem is that the fossil record indicates 2 qualities inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Stasis: Species exhibit very little change over their life within the fossil record.
Sudden Apperance: Species appear fully formed without any trace in thefossil record of whom thier immediate ancestors were. By the way, these are not my words, but Gould, Eldridge and others have used this same words to describe the fossil record.

Daggah

You're taking it out of context then.

randman

Here are some quotes, though a little old, they still illustrate some of what I am talking about. Since I didn't get all of my info from the web, it may take me awhile to find some links to all of the quotes, but this is a beginning.

This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):


“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:


“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:


"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:


“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:


“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:


“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological 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.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]"

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a>

"In 1993 Gould and Eldredge wrote that they.

'believe . . . that punctuated equilibrium has been accepted by most of our colleagues . . . as a valuable addition to evolutionary theory.'45

Many palaeontologists do indeed support the concept of PE. For example, Stanley46 and Vrba.47

However, PE has received less acceptance amongst evolutionary biologists or geneticists. For example, Maynard Smith's overall view

' . . . is that we can forget about new paradigms and the death of neodarwinism.'48

In regard to species selection, he said

'there never was much sense in the idea anyway.'

Others such as Clarke49 refuse to acknowledge any significant contribution from Gould and Eldredge, claiming that Simpson and Mayr had proposed everything worthwhile that PE contained.

Undoubtedly the PE debate has heightened appreciation for the true nature of the fossil record -that of stasis. Gould and Eldredge said,

' . . . palaeontologists never wrote papers on the absence of change in lineages before punctuated equilibrium granted the subject some theoretical space,'

and

'Many leading evolutionary theorists . . . have been persuaded that maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.'50

Mayr seems to have come to agree with them on the reality of stasis.51

Even opponents of PE seem to have accepted the concept of stasis, and even brief periods of rapid change, but they reject the anti-neo-Darwinian concept of non-adaptive, random origin of new species and species selection as the mode of macroevolution. John Maynard Smith, for example, said:

'It would be quite possible, however; to accept the claim that the typical pattern of change is one of long periods of stasis interrupted by brief periods of rapid change, without accepting the ideas of non-adaptive change, species selection, and the uncoupling of macro- and micro-evolution. This is a question for palaeontologists to settle.'52

It is interesting that in their 1993 review paper, Gould and Eldredge define macroevolution in terms of 'species sorting' and somewhat softly assert that

'darwinian extrapolation cannot fully explain large-scale change in the history of life.'53

But what does explain large-scale change? They once again claim

'that punctuated equilibrium was never meant as a saltational theory'.54

They offer no suggestion of a biological basis for large-scale change. Indeed,

'continuing unhappiness, justified this time, focuses upon claims that speciation causes significant morphological change, for no validation of such has emerged'

and

'Moreover, reasonable arguments for potential change throughout the history of lineages have been advanced, although the empirics of stasis throws the efficacy of such processes into doubt.'55

In other words, theoretical processes for change exist, but the fossil data show stasis, thus bringing into question the reality of processes which could bring about change (evolution). As they said,

'stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem'.56

Undoubtedly Gould and Eldredge have done palaeontology a great service by giving the real data of palaeontology, that is, stasis and abrupt appearance, theoretical breathing space. One can only hope that there will be similar frankness amongst evolutionary biologists about the lack of any observed biological mechanism for producing abrupt appearance."

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_punc_equilibrium.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/v8n2_punc_equilibrium.asp</a>

"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will 'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends heavily on speciation."

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp" target="_blank">www.answersingenesis.org/docs/459.asp</a>

lpetrich

In what way?

However, scientists have ways of resolving their disputes, and they tend to eventually agree on some family tree. Although some relationships have long been argued over, that is because it is sometimes difficult to tell exactly what is descended from what, and what is most closely related to what. However, such family-tree lawns are sometimes reshaped into true trees as a result of acquiring additional evidence, such as molecular data.

Where are these non-transitions? Be specific.

Randman, please tell us what cannot be accounted for by a "common creator". And what makes you sure that there was only one? There could have been a big population of creators, each with its specific tastes in life that it had wanted to create.

Which is accepting that evolution happens. Trying to define it away does not prove a thing.

So what? If every single species is the result of special creation, there must have been millions of acts of species creation. However, intermediates between species occasionally occur, so such intermediates are not totally absent. But at higher levels, there are lots of intermediates; there are numerous intermediates between Hyracotherium and Equus, the present-day equines (horses, donkeys, zebras).

Furthermore, as is evident from biogeography, the process that produces new species is constrained by their ancestor species' ability to travel from place to place. Why are there lots of turtles and birds and the like on oceanic islands, with mice and rats and the like arriving only with our species? Birds can fly, turtles can slow down, but mice and rats need to do a lot of eating, and will soon starve. What kind of omnipotent superbeing would let Itself be bothered by such constraints? Even a non-omnipotent superpowerful entity like a little green man in a flying saucer would not be constrained by that.

And will you be willing to evaluate the religion business with the same degree of skepticism? Will you be willing to evaluate the Bible with that sort of skepticism? I get annoyed by those who brag about how skeptical they are, only to see their skepticism disappear completely when it comes to some certain form of nonsense.

Cry me a river, randman. Have you studied anything other than creationist propaganda?

I won't discuss all the creationist-site quotes, because judging from the track record of such quotes, they are either in error or out of context. Why not look at the professional literature, rather than some potentially-misleading selection?

lpetrich

Here are Daggah's sequences, carefully aligned:

[code]
human ...... mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
chimp: ...... mgdvekgkki fimkcsqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqapgysyt aanknkgiiw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifvgikkke eradliaylk katne
mouse: ...... mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
rat: ...... mgdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
guinea pig: ....... .gdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqaagfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkg eradliaylk katne
rabbit: ....... .gdvekgkki fvqkcaqcht vekggkhktg pnlhglfgrk tgqavgfsyt danknkgitw gedtlmeyle npkkyipgtk mifagikkkd eradliaylk katne
corn: asfseap pgnpkageki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknkavvw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk eata.
sunflower: asfaeap agdpttgaki fktkcaqcht vekgaghkqg pnlnglfgrq sgttagysys aanknmaviw eentlydyll npkkyipgtk mvfpglkkpq eradliaylk tsta.
</pre>[/quote]

Their similarities and differences ought to be even easier to see.

randman

I am not taking Gould out of context, and though I use these web-sites since they are a handy way to get the quotes, I did not hear them first from the web. The web as we know it wasn't even around then. Seems to me evolutionists just dodge and weave. Tell you what.
Show me 25 species in a chain with each species the immediate predecessor of the other one. It should be easy if the transitions are shown in the fossil record. Please show where and when the species lived, and what mutations had to take place as much as possible between each species, and then we can see.
Where are the species to species transitions?
Also, you stated:
"And will you be willing to evaluate the religion business with the same degree of skepticism? Will you be willing to evaluate the Bible with that sort of skepticism? I get annoyed by those who brag about how skeptical they are, only to see their skepticism disappear completely when it comes to some certain form of nonsense."
My beleif in Christ is based on personal experience of Him in a tangible manner, not just spiritual. I was a doubter. He, in His mercy, treated me much like Paul or Thomas and chose to reveal Himself to me. Most others do not need such a dramatic proof, and are more admirable for beleiving the truth revealed to them without so much skepticism as I had.
Nonetheless, science and religion have different standards. Are you saying evolution is a faith? and should be treated as such?
If so, I wholeheartedly concur.
Btw, limit the response to one or 2 ideas at a time. I can't live here 24/7.

l-bow

About Punctuated Equilibrium. The punctuations occur at the level of species-to-species transitions. Notice the emphasis on SPECIES. At higher levels, intermediates are more plentiful. Gould complained about this.

John Solum

I'd like you to elaborate on what you think West is saying. Here are a couple of questions I'd like to see you address.

1) What does West say the fossil record supports?

2) What does West refer to when he talks about circular reasoning?

randman

You don't get what he saying?
Circular reasoning is a fairly simple concept.
Concerning the fossil record, spend some time thinking about it.