A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

[UTEOTW]

"The problem is not with DARWIN it is with Natural SELECTION ITSELF! The authors still believe in it -- but they are not trying to "Explain" why we don't see DARWIN in the fossil record!

They are trying to explain why (as Raup says) evolutionary change ITSELF, natural selection ITSELF appears to be lacking support in the fossil record!!"

So when Raup said the following, in the article you are quoting, what did he mean?

Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.

 

[BobRyan]

There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works.

I already addressed this - Raup is NOT here contradicting himself about his OWN admission that the fossil record IS NOT where we find what we would reasonably EXPECT to find where NATURAL SELECTION true.

Nothing in the statement above deals with the fossil record. A record that is LACKING support (according to RAUP)

Get it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In UTEOTW's efforts to continually do damage control for the failed religion of evolutinism he continues to ignore the details in Raup's statements AND IN MY QUOTE BY QUOTE comment to what even UTEOTW posted by Raup...
...

So here it is again -- the DETAILS --- quote-by-quote

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 21.

quote:
________________________________________
We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
________________________________________

(Do you "SEE" the term "NATURAL SELECTION" that is in BOLD? Yet?)

The problem is with NATURAL SELECTION itself. And the problem is there EVEN FOR US as WE see that the DATA is "not nearly as COMPATIBLE with Darwinian NATURAL SELECTION as WE would like".

Note to the reader - there are NOT TWO NATURAL SELECTION doctrines in atheist evolutionism -- only ONE!!

</font>[/QUOTE]Cutting this one short to make it harder for UTEOTW to actually ignore the "details".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 23.


________________________________________
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.
________________________________________

Do you "SEE" the reference to "biological IMPROVEMENT" as the thing that is so hard to find IN the fossil record? yet?

Do you SEE the reference to "CHANGE" so "necessary to evolutionism"?? Yet?

Here Raup strikes at the heart of "Natural Selection" with this reference to descent with modification showing "Biological improvement" - so CENTRAL to Natural selection and so well characterized as UNCLEAR (that this is the case) when the DATA is viewed! (Data that is in the form of EVIDENCE IN the fossil record!!)

Hint: It is in bold.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"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.

Do you SEE the reference to Evolutionary Transistion in the text above? Yet?

E.T is critical to evolutionism -- no opting out of it.

Now that is pretty amazing because instead of saying "Natural SELECTION" Raup goes to the EVEN BROADER statement "Evolutionary TRANSITION" and shows that IT IS MISSING (or at least FEWER supposed examples of it THAN in Darwin's time).

Raup even argues that 120 years later AND 1/4 million fossils later the statistical trend is toward FEWER and FEWER supposed examples of "EVOLUTIONARY TRANSITION" over time!!

Can you say "approaches zero over time"??

Raup continues from the previous quote --

"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 [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated." in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

What he is pointing out is a problem in the fossil EVIDENCE for "NATURAL SELECTION" (see the bold highlight above?? details!)

Raup admits it is NOT what we would "reasonably expect". for evolutionary change -- for Natural Selection

"Your problem" is that you ONLY have one mechanism - "natural selection" and Raup ADMITS that the problems for it ARE NOT alleviated EVEN from the days of DArwin on - not SOLVED and NOT alleviated (in terms of ACTUAL PROOF IN the fossil record).

DETAIL:
Notice that Raup's "mountains" of evidence ARE NOT said to be IN the fossil record!!

INTEAD Raup appeal to "mountains" in the form of lab "experiments" unspecified and undefined in the article!!

But Raup CONSISTENTLY admits to a HUGE problem for Natural Selection when it comes to the FOSSIL RECORD.

Notice the question asked at the end of that post --

Did you "see" the details in the quotes above? Yet?

In Christ,

Bob