A simple Example of Evolutionism's fiction

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW in this thread you have destroyed your own religion - that giant of myths and the only hope of atheists for a doctrine on origin counter to the Bible's docgtrine on origins -- and here's how.

I SHOW (as in the quotes above and the plethora of larger quotes all through this thread) that they REJECT the series first published in the late 1800's with the strong, obvious, explicit terms I QUOTE above.

However you "pretend" to believe that you think that THE Horse series of the late 1800's was correct as far as it went - but was MODIFIEd and IMPROVED in evolutionism by their finding more data and coming up with even better ways to present it factually.

THE PROBLEM with your approach is that you do not distinguish between this bogus, discarded, LAMENTABLE tale in evolutionism vs any other great science proposal, model, example it has had in the last 120 years and improved upon.

USING YOUR approach then - we could argue that ALL OF EVOLUTIONISM that has been "modified" or "improved upon" in these 120 years CAN ALSO qualify for the SAME denegration that YOUR OWN athiest ICONS apply to THE Horse Series of the late 1800's!!!!

Get it!!!

That means that using YOUR slavish devotion to the discredited HORSE series of the 1800's we can NOW apply ALL the pejorative terms YOUR OWN Atheist icons have used ON THAT discarded series against your ENTIRE body of atheist evolutionist claims!!

They are now ALL "Discredited", and "lamentable" and "ALL WRONG" and "Stories easy enough to make up" --- to the extent that they are "modified" or improved in any way--- since YOU are claiming that all these degrading terms are MERELY being used by your own atheist icons to say that THE wonderful horse series has been "modified" and improved over time!!!!

How could you do it!! you have destroyed the entire body of evolutionist propaganda with your approach to the Horse Series!!

Fascinating!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media... Palaeontologists disagree about the speed and pattern of evolution. But they do not --- as much recent publicity has implied --- doubt that evolution is a fact.

#1. Evolutionism is a religion - (a poor one) and at best "a theory" -- but it is NOT a fact.

#2. Atheist evolutionists cling to evolutionism AS IF it was fact - because for an atheist it is the ONLY acceptable religion on "origins".

#3. For Christian evolutionists - it is a failure in both science AND exegesis to embrace the athiest's religion on origins and then insert it into the Gospel "as if" you could.

#4. Raup's quote is clear and obvious - and EASILY understood. Here it is "again" for those who must pretend that they "don't get it".

David Raup, Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, ,formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... 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."
D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50, pg 24, 1979.

Please tell me what you SEE when you SEE the term "discarded" used in Raups quote. Can you actually DEAL with the "details" in this quote? Will your faith in evolutionism allow you this liberty to actually see this detail and address it?

No?

I thought you might have a problem with it.

And "no" I never argue that "atheists stop being atheist" simply because their arguments are conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

And "no" I never argue that the "evolutionists stop being evolutionists" simply because their arguments are conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

RATHER - what I argue is that they are promoting ERROR and that ERROR is conflicted and contradictory by its very nature!

You keep appealing to the contradictory nature of these atheists positions "AS IF" that is a point in favor of evolutionism!!!

It is not.

Having failed in this debate to address even these most basic of foundation principles when addressing science and the Bible - how could you hope to advance your argument except by misdirection and obfuscation?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now I will point out atheists and evolutionists confessing “some” truth of good science in the quotes below, even though conflicts with their own religious zeal for evolutionism. Error by its very nature will be manifest in self-conflicted and contradictory positions taken by the atheists in question. We “expect” to see such contradiction – we “predict it” – and are not “surprised” by it (like many evolutionists appear to be). It is precisely “because” it is “error” that we are not surprised to find cases where good science and truth are forcing clear inconvenient confessions from the mouths of atheists though they REMAIN devoted to the atheist’s doctrine on origins.

I provide the quotes below without insisting that "atheists stop being atheist" simply because their faith in evolutionism contradicts some of their own confession about real science. Rather their error shows their arguments to be as conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

I provide the quotes below without insisting that "evolutionists stop being evolutionists" simply because their arguments are conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

I say this to address the futile damage control tactics of some that would actually appeal to the contradictory nature of these atheists positions when they “cling to evolutionism’s fables in spite of the inconvenient details” in their own quotes below -- "AS IF" those self-conflicted positions make a point in favor of evolutionism!!!
-----------------------------------

the late Colin Patterson, while serving as senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, summed it up best when he stated that Archaeopteryx has simply become a patsy for wishful thinking. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.

It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not a part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test (as quoted in Sunderland, 1988, p. 102).

What we have seen in the case of the horse series is "stories easy enough to make up" but they are not science!

From these quotes we discover that EVEN among evolutionism’s faithful the certainty of grandiose claims for change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.

"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 [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

The amazing thing is that no matter how devastating a statement - a confession is found from UTEOTW's OWN ATHEIST ICONS - the zeal and fervor for his religion "evolutionism" forces the response "Well I know that somehow there is a way to get out of this pickle if I just had more of the quote to work with and try to weasel my way out of the problem".

In other words - faced with clear and blatant contradictions to evolutionism - confessed EVEN BY HIS OWN icons - UTEOTW remains (as do the atheists) "evolutionist still" -- unwilling to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob. Let us know when you learn to quote correctly. All you are doing is taking quotes about orthogenesis and cladogenesis out of context for most of what you think are devestating quotes. If you cannot see that then you may want to consider learning a little bit about the subject you are posting on.

Originally posted by me
Well let's add some perspective by quoting a little more widely from the source material.

LEt's go all the way back to page 21.

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

Right off the bat, Raup tries to draw a difference between the FACT of evolution and the explanation of how that change occurred. When he speaks of Darwin, he is speaking specifically of slow, gradual change.

Now on the next page he states

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.

Look at his own words. The source you choose to use in the paper you choose to quote. There is a "mountain" of evidence to support even gradual change through natural selection. Evolution through natural selection is a process that is shown to work.

On the next page.

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.

Now we start getting to the crux of the matter. Raup supports puncutate equilibrium which says that most change is not gradual. Instead it is "highly uneven or jerky." While natural selection has "mountains" of data to show that it works, the data also show that it is far from the most common mechanism. This is in conflict with Darwin's own initial predictions. Darwin expected change to be dominated by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in gradual change across the board. THis is not what we find.

Your quote.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... 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.

First, could you find the full quote and give it for us? You always worry me with those ellipsis. I'd like to know what you are cutting out. It is normally important and not charitable to your position.

But, it should not start becoming clear what Raup was saying. It is Darwinian style, natural selection driven, gradual change that is not improving very quickly in quantity of data. Remember though, he has already said there is a "mountian" of evidence to support even this mechanism.

Also on the same page.

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.

Again, it is gradual change to which Raup is objecting here.

Finally, on the next page.

What appeared to be a nice 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 which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

This is your explanation. The original horse series, the one that was constrained by being assumed to be Dawinian in nature, the one that was assumed to follow a gradual process, had to be modified when more data was made available. When we had only a few fossils, it appeared to be a nice, smooth progression. When we found more data, the series was able to be seen as "complez" and not "gradualistic." Instead it was "highly uneven [and] jerky."

Context has once again betrayed you. Now meet my trap...uh challenge to you. I have answered you. Give me the same courtesy. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Bob. Let us know when you learn to quote correctly. All you are doing is taking quotes about orthogenesis and cladogenesis out of context

UTEOTW let us know when you learn to pay attention to the actual "details" of the devastating quotes that so obviously expose the flaws, gaffs and blunders in the junk-science we see as evolutionism.

EVEN YOUR OWN atheist ICONS can not help themselves in their expressions of DETAILS so devastating to your religious fervor for the atheists one and only doctrine on origins.

If you can not see that paying attention to 'the details' and responding to 'the details' in quotes from YOUR OWN sources -- is key to the success of your beliefs - how much less would you be convinced by my using YOUR METHODS - which is to ONLY quote YE sources as you ONLY quote EVOLUTIONIST sources??

How can this simple, easy point be so hard for you?

How can you not help but be embarrassed by having to pretend "post-after-post" that you just don't "get it"??

Surely you can do better.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

UTEOTW
Right off the bat, Raup tries to draw a difference between the FACT of evolution and the explanation of how that change occurred. When he speaks of Darwin, he is speaking specifically of slow, gradual change.

"Again" you appeal to the same old tired damage-control strategy of noting that "atheists are still atheists" and "Evolutionists are still evolutionists" EVEN when we see them admitting to the self-conflicted contradiction between science and the junk-religion, junk-science we know today as evolutionism.

As I have REPEATEDLY pointed out -- that part has NEVER been disputed!! (Get it??)

You keep coming back to it as "SEE? I found out that you are quoting MY atheist Evolutionist icons and they are STILL my atheist evolutionist ICONS EVEN though they admit to the point you quote" -- AS IF that is supposed to surprise me or make your case.

Why is this so hard for you?

I would be embarrassed to do what you are doing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

UTEOTW

Look at his own words. The source you choose to use in the paper you choose to quote. There is a "mountain" of evidence to support even gradual change through natural selection. Evolution through natural selection is a process that is shown to work.

Yep - Raup IS AN EVOLUTIONIST!!!

What part of this do you not get??

I AM using your OWN evolutionist ATHEIST ICONS to make my case on specific salient points of the debate.

Why do you continually post AS IF this is such a big surprise for you, or as if this is some NEWS that you discovered?

Bob said --

Now I will point out atheists and evolutionists confessing “some” truth of good science in the quotes below, even though conflicts with their own religious zeal for evolutionism. Error by its very nature will be manifest in self-conflicted and contradictory positions taken by the atheists in question. We “expect” to see such contradiction – we “predict it” – and are not “surprised” by it (like many evolutionists appear to be). It is precisely “because” it is “error” that we are not surprised to find cases where good science and truth are forcing clear inconvenient confessions from the mouths of atheists though they REMAIN devoted to the atheist’s doctrine on origins.

I provide the quotes below without insisting that "atheists stop being atheist" simply because their faith in evolutionism contradicts some of their own confession about real science. Rather their error shows their arguments to be as conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

I provide the quotes below without insisting that "evolutionists stop being evolutionists" simply because their arguments are conflicted and as contradictory as the false witnesses brought against Christ.

I say this to address the futile damage control tactics of some that would actually appeal to the contradictory nature of these atheists positions when they “cling to evolutionism’s fables in spite of the inconvenient details” in their own quotes below -- "AS IF" those self-conflicted positions make a point in favor of evolutionism!!!

Get it? I EXPECT Raup to BE the atheist evolutionist that he always was and I EXPECT his error to be exposed in the form of the VERY self-conflicted and contradictory statements he makes between FAITH in his religion and FACTS in science.

Your quote above - simply makes my point about his holding on to BOTH at once.

Get it?

Yet?

In Christ,

Bob

On the next page.

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.

Now we start getting to the crux of the matter. Raup supports puncutate equilibrium which says that most change is not gradual. Instead it is "highly uneven or jerky." While natural selection has "mountains" of data to show that it works, the data also show that it is far from the most common mechanism. This is in conflict with Darwin's own initial predictions. Darwin expected change to be dominated by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in gradual change across the board. THis is not what we find.

Your quote.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... 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.

First, could you find the full quote and give it for us? You always worry me with those ellipsis. I'd like to know what you are cutting out. It is normally important and not charitable to your position.

But, it should not start becoming clear what Raup was saying. It is Darwinian style, natural selection driven, gradual change that is not improving very quickly in quantity of data. Remember though, he has already said there is a "mountian" of evidence to support even this mechanism.

Also on the same page.

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.

Again, it is gradual change to which Raup is objecting here.

Finally, on the next page.

What appeared to be a nice 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 which can hardly be look upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

This is your explanation. The original horse series, the one that was constrained by being assumed to be Dawinian in nature, the one that was assumed to follow a gradual process, had to be modified when more data was made available. When we had only a few fossils, it appeared to be a nice, smooth progression. When we found more data, the series was able to be seen as "complez" and not "gradualistic." Instead it was "highly uneven [and] jerky."

Context has once again betrayed you. Now meet my trap...uh challenge to you. I have answered you. Give me the same courtesy. [/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

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.

UTEOTW --
Now we start getting to the crux of the matter.

True enough. Accumulated advantage seems to be the "unclear" fact to be strained out of the fossil record on behalf of the religion we know as evolutionism.

UTEOTW --
While natural selection has "mountains" of data to show that it works, the data also show that it is far from the most common mechanism. This is in conflict with Darwin's own initial predictions.

Indeed - if you "think" about what you are saying - Raup has just admitted that the MOUNTAINS that the hopeful zealot for evolutionism clings to must be shown in a fossil record that does NOT show accumulated advantage.

WITHOUT accumulated advantage - natural selection is dead as a mechanism for evolutionism.

How sad that you gloss over this obvious blunder in efforts to "cling to evolutionism anyway".

Sad indeed that a Christian would do it - much less that an atheist would have to stoop to such poor methods.

UTEOTW Darwin expected change to be dominated by the mechanism of natural selection resulting in gradual change across the board. THis is not what we find.

BECAUSE Natural selection IS the mechanism that Darwin chose for evolutionism.

BECAUSE Natural selection would need MANY misfires - many accumulated random advantages with SOME few of them working and the great majority going out as misfires in the night.

With all the species today and with an expected progression of molecule to human brain - there was NTHER alternative via Natural selection. There HAD to be a massive number of gradual interdmediates (hopeful monsters being excluded) for it to be 'natural'.

Raup --

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. ... Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.

HUGE DETAIL - here because the MOUNTAIN of evidence in FAVOR of natural selection must be comprised of FEWER ACTUAL examples of the transition that NATURAL selection produces than Darwin SUPPOSED to have FOUND in his day.

In other words - WITH MORE science FACT comes LESS of evolutionism's SCIENCE FICTION!! The trend over time is to drive evolutionism to ZERO!!

No doubt that Raup as an atheist has NO CHOICE but to express faith in evolutionism ANYWAY while ignoring the implication of this "inconvenient detail" on his story.

I don't doubt his need or zeal for evolutionism in the least INSPITE of the self-conflicted and contradictory nature of EVIDENCE vs junk-science!

Get it?

Simply pointing out that he is STILL an atheist is not really making your point!!

Raup goes on to highlight the DETAILS of actual examples of supposed natural selection being tossed out the window as a valid legit example sequence SHOWING the expected changes.

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.

UTEOTW on the other hand - blindly ENDORSES the very horse series that Raup DISCARDS!!

Does this mean that Raup is a Christian?

NO!

Does it mean that he no longer things horses evolved - NO! HE is an atheist! HE MUST CONTINUE to cling to belief that horses evolved - no matter what the "new more detailed evidence" no matter IF that means he must DISCARD the classic horse series of the late 1800's!!

Get it??!!

UTEOTW --
First, could you find the full quote and give it for us? You always worry me with those ellipsis. I'd like to know what you are cutting out. It is normally important and not charitable to your position.

I believe it was something like "There is no god and evolutionism is true no matter what the problems".

Does that help?

Now - back to the REAL details of the quote and the POINT! (You are good at misdirecting onto rabbit trails in a hopeless damage control effort - I admit that).

IF there is MOUNTAINS of evidence FOR natural selection that must be hidden in FEWER EXAMPLES of natural selection than Darwin had - then HOW is that possible? IS the DISCARDED horse series an example of NEW evidence IN FAVOR of natural selection or is it an example of OLD proofs FOR natural selection being DISCARDED?

Please try to focus on the point.

We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change.

Actually - the problem (given my quote of Raup above) is that we must "explain why we cling to evolution THROUGH natural selection as FACT EVEN though we must ALSO admit that we have FEWER EXAMPLES of such a fact TODAY than Darwin did in his day AND That the trend over time is towards FEWER AND FEWER of them as more detailed information is found".

Please UTEOTW - try to address the salient point of the argument instead of dodging with "YES But RAUP IS STILL a true believer in evolutionism NO MATTER WHAT".

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.

When faced with a contradiction in fossil record - the evolutionist simply follows it with a gross understatement. How tragic - but expected from the atheist who has NTHER CHOICE for a doctrine on origins.

But WHY in the world would a Christian be drinking that Koolaid????

Raup --

What appeared to be a nice 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

Raup makes a devastating point. The PROBLEM with Natural selection is not merely NOT SOLVED - the PROBLEM has not even been "alleviated"!!!

This is "Another" HUGE DETAIL ignored religiously by UTEOTW!!

Not only FEWER examples FOR the transition of natural selection but even WORSE - NO good news! NOT even some form of ALLEVIATION of the problem STARTING with Darwin!!

Surely PROGRESS would have been made TOWARDS the natural selection mechanism that Darwin bet the farm on-- SURELY the MOUNTAINS of evidence in support of natural selection consititute MORE than "some alleviation" of Darwins problem - but "NO" we have NO ALLEVIATION!

How instructive.

How self-conflicted with the claim about the MOUNTAINS of evidence.

How contradictory is the evidence SEEN vs the data NEEDED.

AS Raup points out 'WE NEEDED' to find much better support for Darwin's natural selection than we found.

Raup said
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.

AGAIN - in this "gross understatement" we find the KEY point that what we SEE in the fossil record is NOT what we might reasonable EXPECT as a the PREDICTION of natural selection!!

It is left as an exercise for the reader to SEE that this is EXACTLY what Creationists have been PREDICTING and CLAIMING about the support of that evidence AND it comes from an ATHEIST who REMAINs evolutionist because he HAS no other doctrine for origins available to him!

UTEOTW
This is your explanation. The original horse series, the one that was constrained by being assumed to be Dawinian in nature, the one that was assumed to follow a gradual process, had to be modified when more data was made available.

Wrong "again".

I point out Raup's OWN statement that it was DISCARDED.

I point out Raup's OWN statement that it WAS at one time a proof- an example of NATURAL SELECTION but NOW represents the TRUTH behind the claim that we have FEW EXAMPLES of natural selection TODAY than we did in Darwin's day BECAUSE new data causes us to DISCARD old supposed PROOFS!

How "sad" that you must continually "pretend" not to get this argument -- that you can't even bring yourself to quote it when trying to say what I am claiming.

Step into the light.

UTEOTW --
Context has once again betrayed you. Now meet my trap...uh challenge to you. I have answered you. Give me the same courtesy.

#1. You have seldom if ever engaged in the sentency-by-sentence and detail-by-detail response to my posts that I have done here with yours and have done repeatedly with yours.

#2. My response here has shown your proposal to have totally failed - "yet" at the end you "Declare victory over yourself" regarding "The quotes" AS IF you actually have done something OTHER than show that atheists STILL NEED to believe in evolutionism NO MATTER what inconvenient, contradictory, self-conflicted facts of science they confess to.

That should be embarrassing for you.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

The only thing to get is that you seem to have a source that is skilled at taking quotes that speak of cladogenesis replacing orthogenesis as a leading mechanism for evolution and making them sound like they are some sort of admissions by scientists that evolution completely fails to work. The meaning becomes clear when placed in context. So you just pretend the context does not exist.

Just look at all your horsy quotes. All you have succeeded in doing is showing that scientists no longer view the horse series as othogenetic. That series has been modified or discarded in favor of the more complete cladogenetic series. You have nothing to object to that. You instead attempt to tear down a 100 year old house with 50 year old quotes when the scientists have already moved on from that house decades ago. You can find no objection to the current horse series so you instead object to the one that is no longer accepted anyhow.

That is worse than a strawman. You are actually beating a dead horse. You care you look a real horse in the mouth?

 

[BobRyan]

All you have succeeded in doing - is ignoring all the details of my posts that deal IN DETAIL with the problems in RAUP's quotes.

How can you continually "pretend" not to understand that running away from those details does NOT improve your argument?

Why is this so hard for you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

The problem is that you ignore the details surrounding Raup's quotes.

If you look above at the fuller quote, you can see that he has no doubt about evolution as being a fact. You can see that he says there are "mountains" of data.

What he is doing is pointing out that pure Darwinian evolution is gradual and orthogenetic. The fossil record is neither gradual nor orthogenetic for the most part, though there is some of that. The fossil record is primarily cladogenetic. That is that the actual fossil record shows an uneven pace and it shows a branching and overlapped pattern of evolution.

You merely pull out the part where he says that most evolution is not gradual and make it sound like he is saying there is no evidence for evolution at all. He is actually saying that the evidence is that most evolution is jerky and branching instead of Darwin's idea of gradual and successive.

The is nothing I am ignoring or pretending not to see. I see fine. YOu have to ignore the context. You have to pretend the full quotes are merely Raup and others trying to cover their "blunders." The truth is to be found in the full quotes. And the full quotes do not show what you try and present them as saying. Otherwise you would be giving us evidence that shows that the current horse series did not happen instead of making a case that a horse series did not happen that no one claims did.

You are as bad as the atheist who quotes the Bible as saying "There is no God." I am merely filling in the rest. You don't seem to think that context is good enough. And you don't think that showing other statements from the scientists in question that show your quotes are at odds with their opinions is valid either.

SO how would you handle the atheist who quotes the Bible as above. You have already ruled out quoting the rest of the verse. YOu have already ruled out quoting other parts of the BIble. So how would you handle such a situation?

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
The problem is that you ignore the details surrounding Raup's quotes.

If you look above at the fuller quote, you can see that he has no doubt about evolution as being a fact.

Arrrrrrrgh!

Obviously you don't read.

I keep SHOWING that your tired argument that evolutionists REMAIN evolutionists IN SPITE of the problems they confess in the DETAILS - is NOT the point under debate.

In FACT it is EXPECTED of error - to be self-conflicted and contradictory!!

Get IT?

Yet?

Why keep up your silly game??

When do you EVER see me claim that Raup is not Atheist??????????

When do you EVER see me claim that Raup is not YOUR ATHEIST EVOLUTIONIST ICON?????

In fact that is my very POINT!!!

But then you come back with that most "brilliant" observation "YES but Raup remains and atheist - and STILL believes in evolutionism" ---

Really? My how surprising?

I really did not know that! Thank you for pointing that out. It changes "Everything".

UTEOTW --
You can see that he says there are "mountains" of data.

Yep right around the time that he tells us that those mountains are MISSING from the fossil record!!

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.
________________________________________

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.
________________________________________

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.

"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" and he admits it is NOT what we would "reasonably expect".

"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).

His "mountains" are all in the form of lab "experiment" unspecified and undefined in the article.

He admits to a HUGE problem for Natural Selection when it comes to the FOSSIL RECORD.

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

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You merely pull out the part where he says that most evolution is not gradual and make it sound like he is saying there is no evidence for evolution at all.

Your utter failure in logic as a form of damage control in behalf of the false gods of evolutionism - is "entertaining" but obvious.

#1. Darwin or not - you only have ONE solution and that is NATURAL SELECTION.

Get it? Yet?

#2. Raup does NOT argue for TWO solutions OR for TWO NATURAL SELECTION models!!

#3. Raup shows that it is NATURAL SELECTION ITSELF that is MISSING from the fossil record.

As your devoted faithful atheist he truly BELIEVES in it "anyway" and points to mountains of evidence for it ELSEWHERE (in labs - in experiments) BUT NOT in the FOSSIL RECORD.

In fact HE points out that the fossil record IS NOT what we would REASONABLY expect if NATURAL SELECTION were the mechanism for evolution. The EVIDENCE for accumulated advantages is NOT there -- NOT what we would "reasonably" expect.

Get it? Yet?

Huge problem! See?

He NEVER says "The fossil record SHOWS natural Selection CLEARLY"

Rather he says the PROBLEM for natural selection is not sovled NOR EVEN ALLEVIATED from the time of Darwin on - when you look at the fossil record.!!

HE KNOWS that "parents give birth to children" and that the key principle in natural selection is that this is how advantages MUST accumulate! There are no alien spaceships coming in to "save" natural selection "some other way"!!

It is "obvious" EVEN to him!

The is nothing I am ignoring or pretending not to see. I see fine.

How I wish "that" were true!

Otherwise you would be giving us evidence that shows that the current horse series

What do you mean by "The current horse series did not happen"?

Do you mean the one PUBLISHED in the late 1800's????

Do you mean the one "DISCARDED" as Raup says??

Do you mean the "LAMENTABLE HORSE SERIES" in the texts books as late as 1988?

Do you mean the one that "NEVER HAPPENED in NATURE"

(These are all what YOUR Atheist ICONS say about it).

Is THAT the one you "pretend" not to notice?

And you don't think that showing other statements from the scientists in question that show your quotes are at odds with their opinions is valid either.

You are "slowly" getting the point that the error of evolutionism MUST result in self-conflicted arguments and clear contradictions between what evolutionism's devotees NEED and what they "Say" that they SEE.

How wonderful!

See it "again"

From these quotes we discover that EVEN among evolutionism’s faithful the certainty of grandiose claims for change – becomes LESS true over time as Real science confronts junk-science speculation with “details” replacing guesswork with some “fact”.

"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 [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.

The above statement is a classic confession that data is never the friend of evolutionists – it merely unravels the twisted layers of guesswork and speculation built around skimpy data, wild guesses and evolutionist religious fervor.

For the thinking reader - the problems for evolutionism’s “Natural Select” are Huge based on Raup’s clear and obvious points above.

1. It has been observed that on page 22 of that same document Raup claims that there is a mountain of experimental in favor of natural selection. But then he admits in the quote above that the actual “evidence” in the fossil record can “hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of Natural Selection”.
a. A classic tactic of evolutionists when confronted with disconfirming evidence and inconvenient facts – is to meet them head-on with “understatement”.
b. In the understatement above – Raup admits that what Natural selection predicts we should find in the fossil record is NOT what we DO find. It PREDICTS many random variations and transitions – most of which would not work a few of which might succeed for a time and then some that would succeed over a long period of time.
c. On page 21 Raup says – “The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. ”
d. He does not admit the “obvious” which is that though the record is NOT what Natural selection would “predict” or would “reasonably predict” IT IS what Creationism would predict!

2. In the quote above – Raup points out that the TREND of the data over time is to REMOVE those proofs for natural selection that had been PRESUMED in earlier years RATHER than providing more examples over time. He is showing that “as more detailed information” is found (i.e science FACT confronting science FICTION) the fiction is “discarded”
a. Even worse – Raup exposes a huge problem for Natural selection – in that he argues that its STARTING problems that existed in the days of Darwin have not “even” been ALLEVIATED!! What a devastation for evolutionism’s “natural selection!!

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

________________________________________
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.
________________________________________

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.
________________________________________

Please - write down the details highlighted - bolded - repeated, commented etc for your review.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

You should really learn to read for comprehension instead of looking for snippets you can use.

Raup is making a point throughout his article. That point is that Darwin expected the primary mechanism of evolution to be natural selection, its tempo to be gradual and its mode to be orthogenetic. (Orthogenetic being that A evolves into B while A disappears then B involves into C and B disappears and so on.) Raup says that we have found evidence for these things but that they are far from the most common mechanisms and pace of evolution.

No amount of selective snipping changes that. You act as if these guys are making some big admission and then trying to cover it up because they have to. This fails on multiple reasons. Primarily, because the full statements show something else being said that what you imply. Second, you continually charge that they have no other choice and ignore that many fine CHristian men and women work in these fields. Obviously they have a choice. I guess you have to ignore them too.

And no, I do not think any of your horse quotes apply to the modern horse sequence. You should really go back and read them in context and for comprehension, too. You are beating a dead horse. YOu are showing that something is not true that no one is claiming is true.

 

[BobRyan]

Still ignoring the "details" UTEOTW??

I thought so.

You ignore your own blunders in this case. The details SHOW that NATURAL SELECTION is what is missing and you have NOTHING in the way of TWO NATURAL SELECTIONS.

The quotes remain.

The points remain - unnanswered by you since you choose to ignore these inconvenient details and cling to your story "anyway".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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 [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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you run and hide from the "Details" notice the focus that Raup makes on "Natural Selection".

Notice that EVEN GOULD does NOT have another mechanism OTHER than NATURAL SELECTION for evolutionism's doctrine on origins - (you know, The one and only doctrine on origins acceptable to atheists)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Ignoring what?

Raup says that natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin as a gradual, steady, orthogenetic process is not the main mechanism for evolution. Even though he says that there are "mountains" of data supporting NS, the data bears out that it is not the main mechanism, contraryt to Darwin's thoughts.

In the years since Darwin, the increasing knowledge of the fossil record has not shown a great increase in gradual processes over what was known in the days of Darwin. Instead, the new data shows that a jerky, bushy, cladogenetic mechanism seems to be behind most evolutionary change. This may be punctuated equilibrium or drift of stasis or any of a number of other specific mechanisms. But the gradual mechanism, envisioned by Darwin and driven by NS, has not been born out as the leader.

Do you honestly doubt that this is what Raup is saying? Even once I give you the rest of the quote where he says basically that? If so, then what do you think Raup was trying to say?

 

[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...

I have highlighted the key salient DETAILS so that when UTEOTW ignores them - it will be blatantly obvious.

However in my previous post of Raup I failed to BOLD outline ALL the references to the PROBLEMs for Natural Selection.

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.
________________________________________

The prbolem 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!!

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.
________________________________________

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!!)

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.

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.

</font>[/QUOTE]Notice the question asked at the end of that post --

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

Apparently "not".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Do you read my posts?

Raup is saying that natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin, what is supposed to be a gradual, steady, orthogenetetic process, is not born out by the fossil record. Do you get that? Apparently, but you are unable to see the rest.

He says that while there is a "mountain" of evidence for NS as a mechanism, the majority of the data points to other mechanisms as driving evolution. It is primary cladogenetic in nature and is driven primarily by many other mechanisms than Darwinian style natural selection.

What part of this do you not grasp? Go back and read again the posts where I give you additional quotes from Raup from the same article. Read them comprehension. Open your eyes and your mind. And when you do so, come back and tell us what you think Raup was trying to say. IF you are honest, you will say the same thing I have.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm - I responded to Raup's statements "IN DETAIL" and show numerous places where your view runs aground -- and then you simply "ignore the details".

How "unnexpected".

Having said that - "Natural Selection" is "obviously" the ONLY mechanism that Darwin was hoping to bail him out and it is obviously the only mechanism the S.J Gould proposes for HOW evolution occured.

The who punctuated equilibrium "story" is NOT a new mechanism for evolutionism or any variation AT ALL on Natural Selection. Rather - Gould is trying to offer an "explanation" for WHY the EVIDENCE in the fossil record does not match what would be "reasonably EXPECTED" (As Raup says) of the process of Natural Selection occuring over millions and millions of years!

Get it?

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!!

That is HUGE -- for any evolutionist using independent thought and objective thinking.

For the Christian - who accepts the Word of God -- it is merely an "expected problem for evolutionists" to have to solve.

Surely you will tire of having to "pretend" that you just don't get the point of this argument.

In Christ,

Bob