Evidence against Evolution

[Pegg]

In response to the 'evidence against speciation?' thread, im making this to present some of the evidence that some scientists have identified which contradict aspects of the current model of ToE and do give people like myself a reason to doubt.


In this thread i'm going to focus only on 2 points about the fossil record. Evolutionists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They say that the fossil record documents the evolution of fish becoming amphibians and reptiles becoming mammals. They say this happened in progressive stages over very long periods of time.

If that is true, then the fossil record should show the simple stages of life progress to more advanced stages with the appearance of slow and gradual changes in the biology of living creatures. And on this point alone, 2 facts come to light which give cause for doubt on this point.

So what are the facts, What exactly does the fossil record demonstrate?

Fact 1.
The beginnings of life is known as the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence reveals [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] an explosion of diversity which lead to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms.[/FONT] This is a contradiction to the theory that life evolved slowly has led to several other theories on how evolution happens. In 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman in an interview discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance : “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

Prior to this time, 88% of geological history, is the 'pre-cambrian' time. They have apparently found Bacteria in this period of time, however the fossil remains of such bacteria is scanty. But when you consider that bacteria is also found on floating metorites in space...then its not surprising that it is also found on the pre-cambrian earth. Earth is part of the universe after all. And the problem is that bacteria in itself does not prove evolution....it does not prove that the creatures found in the cambrian explosion arose from such bacteria.


Fact 2
Evolutionists place fossils in a series to attempt to show the ancestral descent of said animals...eg:

But lining up fossils in such a way is majorly flawed. The specimens are often separated by millions of years. This is a problem as some researchers have noted:
Zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Of course Gee still believes and promotes evolution, but he acknowledges the flaw in lining up specimens in this way.

Another biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times...There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.” Of course he still believes in evolution and teaches it, but his admission indicates that the fossil record may not be as full as it should be....if information is missing, then how can they make the case for ancestry when most of the ancestry is missing? And just to highlight this point about the missing information, an article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”

The implication of that illustration shows just how little information they have when it comes to fossil evidence. And with so little information, it would be virtually impossible to know what the heck is going on in reality.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Fact 1.
The beginnings of life is known as the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence reveals an explosion of diversity which lead to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. This is a contradiction to the theory that life evolved slowly has led to several other theories on how evolution happens. In 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman in an interview discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance : “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

Sorry. Your "fact" is incorrect.

The Cambrian Explosion has nothing to do with "the beginnings of life. But rather a rapid expansion of phyla in the Animal Kingdom.
And it is not "Evidence against evolution", in fact the accumulation of Precambrian fossils is showing that the early Cambrian rapid evolution (rapid as in 5 to ten MILLION years) was not as much an "explosion" as previously thought.
What we learn is more about the mechanisms of biological evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

What scientific alternative do you propose explains the Precambrian fossils and the Cambrian explosion

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What scientific alternative do you propose explains the Precambrian fossils and the Cambrian explosion

opcorn:

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Evolutionists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They say that the fossil record documents the evolution of fish becoming amphibians and reptiles becoming mammals. They say this happened in progressive stages over very long periods of time.

Actually they don't (or at least, shouldn't). Fossils are useful because they provide steps in a big evolutionary tree of life, but they're incomplete at best. They are suggestive of common descent but they certainly wouldn't be enough to qualify it as a theory, at least not on their own.

The evidence for common descent really comes from genetics and various other fields; Wikipedia maintains a pretty good article on just why common descent is the standard model.

If that is true, then the fossil record should show the simple stages of life progress to more advanced stages with the appearance of slow and gradual changes in the biology of living creatures.

Actually it's pretty rare for the fossil record to show anything about the simple stages of life, because without hard body parts (teeth, bones etc) there's little to fossilize.

Fact 1.
The beginnings of life is known as the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence reveals an explosion of diversity which lead to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. This is a contradiction to the theory that life evolved slowly has led to several other theories on how evolution happens. In 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman in an interview discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance : “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

This is dead right, which is one of the reasons why Darwinian evolution has long since been abandoned in favour of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. In short, natural selection is certainly not the only contributing factor to evolution, and evolution itself doesn’t always progress at a standard speed.

Prior to this time, 88% of geological history, is the 'pre-cambrian' time. They have apparently found Bacteria in this period of time, however the fossil remains of such bacteria is scanty. But when you consider that bacteria is also found on floating metorites in space...then its not surprising that it is also found on the pre-cambrian earth. Earth is part of the universe after all. And the problem is that bacteria in itself does not prove evolution....it does not prove that the creatures found in the cambrian explosion arose from such bacteria.

Bacteria certainly proves micro-evolution, after all they reproduce fast enough that the changes can be easily documented. Once you have multi-cellular organisms (sponges comes to mind) it makes sense that you’d start getting all sorts of different life developing, which is exactly what we see in the Cambrian Explosion.

It’s also important to mention that we are finding more and more fossils from the Pre-Cambrian period, so the time it actually took is being stretched somewhat.

Fact 2

If it was based on the fossil record alone I’d agree, but as I’ve mentioned fossils only really give you an idea of what was around at the specific time the fossil was dated. Naturally putting them in order of when they were dated makes sense, but it’s hardly complete. What links them is genetics.

In short the fossil record is extremely limited relative to the number of species that have existed. Scientists use DNA comparisons to get an idea of how the stages of evolution progressed, with the Holy Grail being a complete tree of every species that has ever existed.

 

[McBell]

In response to the 'evidence against speciation?' thread, im making this to present some of the evidence that some scientists have identified which contradict aspects of the current model of ToE and do give people like myself a reason to doubt.


In this thread i'm going to focus only on 2 points about the fossil record. Evolutionists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They say that the fossil record documents the evolution of fish becoming amphibians and reptiles becoming mammals. They say this happened in progressive stages over very long periods of time.

If that is true, then the fossil record should show the simple stages of life progress to more advanced stages with the appearance of slow and gradual changes in the biology of living creatures. And on this point alone, 2 facts come to light which give cause for doubt on this point.

So what are the facts, What exactly does the fossil record demonstrate?

Fact 1.
The beginnings of life is known as the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence reveals [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] an explosion of diversity which lead to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms.[/FONT] This is a contradiction to the theory that life evolved slowly has led to several other theories on how evolution happens. In 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman in an interview discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance : “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

Prior to this time, 88% of geological history, is the 'pre-cambrian' time. They have apparently found Bacteria in this period of time, however the fossil remains of such bacteria is scanty. But when you consider that bacteria is also found on floating metorites in space...then its not surprising that it is also found on the pre-cambrian earth. Earth is part of the universe after all. And the problem is that bacteria in itself does not prove evolution....it does not prove that the creatures found in the cambrian explosion arose from such bacteria.


Fact 2
Evolutionists place fossils in a series to attempt to show the ancestral descent of said animals...eg:

But lining up fossils in such a way is majorly flawed. The specimens are often separated by millions of years. This is a problem as some researchers have noted:
Zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” Of course Gee still believes and promotes evolution, but he acknowledges the flaw in lining up specimens in this way.

Another biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times...There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.” Of course he still believes in evolution and teaches it, but his admission indicates that the fossil record may not be as full as it should be....if information is missing, then how can they make the case for ancestry when most of the ancestry is missing? And just to highlight this point about the missing information, an article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”

The implication of that illustration shows just how little information they have when it comes to fossil evidence. And with so little information, it would be virtually impossible to know what the heck is going on in reality.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the fossil record all by itself makes or breaks evolution.
This assumption could not be further from the truth.
the fossil record merely supports evolution.

 

[McBell]

What scientific alternative do you propose explains the Precambrian fossils and the Cambrian explosion

There isn't one as far as I know.

though I do find it rather comical that people STILL think that the fossil record makes or breaks evolution.

I also find it comical how so many people think that if they disprove evolution, that somehow creation magically becomes the default replacement.

Though I can understand the connection between god magically poofing life into existence and creation magically replacing evolution....

 

[outhouse]

Anybody cook up that precambrian rabbit for dinner???


Or


are we going to through it in a pot for stew ??


MMMmmm MMMmm

 

[Skwim]

Evolutionists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They say that the fossil record documents the evolution of fish becoming amphibians and reptiles becoming mammals. They say this happened in progressive stages over very long periods of time.

If that is true, then the fossil record should show the simple stages of life progress to more advanced stages with the appearance of slow and gradual changes in the biology of living creatures. And on this point alone, 2 facts come to light which give cause for doubt on this point.

Why should it? Fossilization is a very rare occurrence, and fossils are not created to last millions and millions of years. That we have any at all is amazing in of itself.

So what are the facts, What exactly does the fossil record demonstrate?

Fact 1.
The beginnings of life is known as the Cambrian Explosion. The evidence reveals [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] an explosion of diversity which lead to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms.[/FONT] This is a contradiction to the theory that life evolved slowly has led to several other theories on how evolution happens. In 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman in an interview discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance : “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”

Interesting that this quote

“The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”
​

is a deliberate misquote appearing in the Watchtower.

Here is the evidence as presented on the Discussion:L'Origine de la Vie web page.

"The quote appears in the end of the interview:

Question : How much will the scientific establishment now have to reorient in light of the momentum of the Extended Synthesis? Will Darwin go the way of Freud? And will the Extended Synthesis require an extensive rewriting of textbooks?
I believe that the field eventually will have to reorient. I don't by any means think the science that's been done under the Darwinian paradigm will disappear or will be seen to be entirely invalid. (emphasis added) But the Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of the several mechanisms - maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.
​

Of course, no biologist accepts “traditional” evolutionary theory as described 150 years ago. Darwin lacked much of the fossil evidence that exists now, and had no knowledge of genetics, much less the sophisticated genetic tools of the 21st century. New evidence necessitates improved theories. Emerging research suggests that other genetic phenomena that would have been unimaginable to Darwin are important for shaping species. When Dr. Newman refers to the “Darwinian mechanism”, he is referring specifically to natural selection. Other mechanisms like gene flow, genetic drift, and recombination can also lead to biological change. No biologist would be surprised to hear the evolution is not restricted only to natural selection.

Source : Archaeology, "The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual," by Suzan Mazur. October 11. 2008 - Interview on The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual"

​

So much for honesty. And to see more JW duplicity---22 other scientists are also misquoted---- just click on the Discussion:L'Origine de la Vie link above.

 

[HerDotness]

My med oncologist sure lied to me then when she told me that cancer treatment today depends heavily upon what we've learned about both DNA and evolution in order to select the chemo drugs that will most effectively target the characteristics of the cancer a person has.

So, I simply don't believe that your attempts do anything to deny that evolution happens.

 

[Revoltingest]

My med oncologist sure lied to me then when she told me that cancer treatment today depends heavily upon what we've learned about both DNA and evolution in order to select the chemo drugs that will most effectively target the characteristics of the cancer a person has.
So, I simply don't believe that your attempts do anything to deny that evolution happens.

Well, your problem is obvioius!
You went to an oncologist, when you should've gone to a cancer doctor.

 

[Pegg]

Sorry. Your "fact" is incorrect.

The Cambrian Explosion has nothing to do with "the beginnings of life. But rather a rapid expansion of phyla in the Animal Kingdom.
And it is not "Evidence against evolution", in fact the accumulation of Precambrian fossils is showing that the early Cambrian rapid evolution (rapid as in 5 to ten MILLION years) was not as much an "explosion" as previously thought.
What we learn is more about the mechanisms of biological evolution.

do you think 10 million years is a long time in comparison to 4.5 billion years of geological history?

It was as tiny fraction of time. All the phyla on earth today is present in the cambrian explosion. That means that the different phyla did not come from pre-existing phyla. They had their own individual beginnings for they are seen in the fossil record as fully formed animals.

That in itself rules out a gradual descent from one phyla to another.

 

[HerDotness]

Well, your problem is obvioius!
You went to an oncologist, when you should've gone to a cancer doctor.

I hope that was supposed to be a joke.

 

[Pegg]

What scientific alternative do you propose explains the Precambrian fossils and the Cambrian explosion

the pre cambrian fossils are said to be bacterias which are also found on meteorites...this could imply that bacteria are universal and not necessarily the cataclyst of life on earth. To link them to the phyla of the cambrian explosion is merely speculation.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

do you think 10 million years is a long time in comparison to 14 billion years of geological history?

You're off by a few billion years. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

All the phyla on earth today is present in the cambrian explosion.

No, they aren't. None of the phyla we know today were present at the CE. Even plants post date the explosion by a good chunk of time. There were no mammals, reptiles, birds, insects or spiders involved in the CE. There were what could be labelled "fish" but they're unlike any fish alive today.

More info here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

 

[HerDotness]

Tell ya what, Pegg. Next time your doctor wants to prescribe a medicine for you, you'd better ask if it was developed as a result of our knowledge of evolution. I'm sure you wouldn't want to take any medication that you know can't possibly be effective, because evolution is wrong.

 

[Pegg]

Bacteria certainly proves micro-evolution, after all they reproduce fast enough that the changes can be easily documented. Once you have multi-cellular organisms (sponges comes to mind) it makes sense that you’d start getting all sorts of different life developing, which is exactly what we see in the Cambrian Explosion.

Bacteria remain bacteria though...they reproduce extremely fast, faster then any other life form...that is not a reflection of other life forms. It is only evidence for what bacteria itself manages to do.

Naturally putting them in order of when they were dated makes sense, but it’s hardly complete. What links them is genetics.

If bacteria are being classed as animals, then thats one way to close the gap...but are they animals?

In short the fossil record is extremely limited relative to the number of species that have existed. Scientists use DNA comparisons to get an idea of how the stages of evolution progressed, with the Holy Grail being a complete tree of every species that has ever existed.

when you say a 'complete tree of every species', do you mean that each species is its own tree? Or do you subscribe to the theory that all come from one tree?

 

[Pegg]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the fossil record all by itself makes or breaks evolution.
This assumption could not be further from the truth.
the fossil record merely supports evolution.

my opening remarks made clear that i was focusing solely on fossils in this thread. I know there are other fields, but in terms of fossils, they are unconvincing evidence to me.

 

[Pegg]

Interesting that this quote

“The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”
​

is a deliberate misquote appearing in the Watchtower.

Here is the evidence as presented on the Discussion:L'Origine de la Vie web page.

"The quote appears in the end of the interview:

Question : How much will the scientific establishment now have to reorient in light of the momentum of the Extended Synthesis? Will Darwin go the way of Freud? And will the Extended Synthesis require an extensive rewriting of textbooks?
I believe that the field eventually will have to reorient. I don't by any means think the science that's been done under the Darwinian paradigm will disappear or will be seen to be entirely invalid. (emphasis added) But the Darwinian mechanism that's used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of the several mechanisms - maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.
​

​

If you read it honestly, it isnt a misquote at all. He is clearly stating that other mechanisms will have to be looked at because the Darwinian one is not sufficient on its own.
And that is the point made in the watchtower - "he discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain this sudden appearance"

 

[McBell]

my opening remarks made clear that i was focusing solely on fossils in this thread. I know there are other fields, but in terms of fossils, they are unconvincing evidence to me.

If you take the blatant falsehoods you presented int he Op as honest fact, it is no wonder you are so ignorant of evolution and how fossils help support it.