Intelligent Design = evolution without a commitment to materialism

[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.
________________________________________

The clear lesson of history is that the myths and fables of evolutionism only survive in the gray fog of uncertainty and speculation where science is not yet able to validate, certify, confirm, test, reproduce, measure facts and separate them from the bogus fiction of that “bad religion” we know as evolutionism.

But once the data is actually collected and the “full light of day is shining” the result is to erode more and more of the vast territory of speculation staked out by evolutionism’s priesthood.

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.

Now we start getting to the crux of the matter. Raup supports

Gould sees the same thing in the discrediting of the horse series sequence published by Simpson.

The enormous increase in fossil evidence since Simpson's time has allowed paleontologists .... to falsify this view. In other words, bushiness now pervades the entire phylogeny of horses.
S. J. Gould, Full House 1997, pg 67-69.

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . . As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks[/b]."—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.
)

 

[BobRyan]

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

Just had to get this one by itself as I am sure there are "Stories waiting to be told" about it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The clear lesson of history is that the myths and fables of evolutionism only survive in the gray fog of uncertainty and speculation where science is not yet able to validate, certify, confirm, test, reproduce, measure facts and separate them from the bogus fiction of that “bad religion” we know as evolutionism.

But once the data is actually collected and the “full light of day is shining” the result is to erode more and more of the vast territory of speculation staked out by evolutionism’s priesthood.


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.

 

[BobRyan]

So when we find that the "Stories" were in the words of these atheist evolutionists "all wrong" and "never existed" and "had to be discarded" -- what "new stories" arise to take the place of the "old stories easy enough to tell"???

Well in the pseudoscience of evolutionism there is "always" another story to be told!!

And in the "bad religion" that we call evolutionism there is never a shortage of devotees waiting to fall on their swords over the next "new story" while diminishing the Word of God as "less trustworthy" then there system of "Failed story piled upon failed story".

(That National Geographic article with Archaeoraptor comes to mind.)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
He keeps looking for the silver
And the crack about feathers - dated 1985!

Poor Paul - he is still stuck on evolutionism's blunders in 1985! I was pointing to the blunders they were making in 1999 and 2000!

Unfortunately, National Geographic editor Bill Allen chose to run the November 1999 story before the “find” had been reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. In an effort to capitalize on this rare find, participants in the Archaeoraptor discovery rushed a paper to both Nature and Science but, as USA Today reporter Tim Friend learned, that paper “was never published” (2000). In his report for National Geographic, Simons acknowledged that
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
...a plan was cobbled together [to] first write a paper and have it published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature. National Geographic—which attempts to bridge the gap between hardcore science and popular interpretation—prefers not to break scientific discoveries without having them peer reviewed in advance by scientists. The effort to coordinate publication between Nature and National Geographic would eventually break down, contributing in large measure to the Geographic publishing a false article (2000, 198[4]:130).

With time constraints nipping at its heels, and peer-review rejections piling up, National Geographic decided to go out on a limb (again, no pun intended) and run the story on its own. Writing for Science News, Richard Monastersky observed:

Red-faced and downhearted, paleontologists are growing convinced that they have been snookered by a bit of fossil fakery.... “There probably has never been a fossil with a sadder history than this one,” says Storrs L. Olson of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (2000).

In an e-mail to his co-authors and to Sloan, Xu Xing wrote: “I am 100% sure, we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen” (as quoted in Simons, 2000, 198[4]:132)

Proof of that fact was not long in coming. In the March 29, 2001 issue of Nature, Timothy Rowe and his colleagues published the results of their X-ray computed tomography studies on the Archaeoraptor fossil (2001, 410:539-540). Their study documented the fact that “the Archaeoraptor slab was built in three layers,” and concluded that Archaeoraptor

represents two or more species and that it was assembled from at least two, and possibly five, separate specimens.

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Hmmmm. is it my imagination or was there some post stuttering going on up there?

Sorry, Bob, your finding somebody who was an evolutionist and once made a mistake is about as conclusive as looking over the baptist board and finding two sincere believers who disagree with each other about whether or not any version except the king james is ok to read in english.

The fact that they disagree with this and do so with great vehemence does NOT PROVE that THERE IS NOTHING TUR RELIGION!

It is the same with these things you've "alledgedly" posted.

By the way, those "pouches" or "slits" in human embryos that so resemble the slits in fish embryos - what's wrong with noting how they have been conserved to no purpose over the eons?

They certainly seem like a weird thing to see on the human embryo, and I've never heard anybody claim they were good for anything today - so why do you think you can just say Heackel was wrong about them, no argument?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Here's a link to a summary of feather evolution:

http://www.nurseminerva.co.uk/adapt/feathers.htm

Note that scientists sometimes will say "probably" instead of "certainly".

Some people will claim that shows weakness on the part of science.

I claim it shows the strength of the honesty on the part of scientists who post in that manner.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

Just had to get this one by itself as I am sure there are "Stories waiting to be told" about it.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmph. Just because the horse evolution scenario has been revised and improved Bob thinkgs that proves evolution false!

Well, horses are indeed a splendid example of evolution, and here's a link to a summary of the current view of horse evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

But let me ask Bob Ryan this - don't horses still have those shin spints on their feet, that cannot be explained except at remnants of three toed ancestors?

Doesn't the total extinction of three toed ancestors and their replacement by the single hooved current horses show that evolution in fact occurs?

Doesn't the transformation of three toes into one great hoof count as macro evolution?

 

[BobRyan]

Hmmph. Just because the horse evolution scenario has been revised and improved Bob thinkgs that proves evolution false!

Hmmph. What a "euphamism" we have in that quote -- "revised and IMPROVED" is the new way to admit/confess to "sequence NEVER HAPPENED" and "Positive embarrassment" - "LAMENTABLE story" - "ALL WRONG presentation".

"Discarded" now means "revised and improved". (Or is it the other way around?)

No amount of "story telling piled on to story telling" will cause the blunders to vanish as if "edited out of memory".

Why do evolutionists find that concept to be so surprising?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, horses are indeed a splendid example of evolution

That was my point

 

[BobRyan]

Doesn't the transformation of three toes into one great hoof count as macro evolution?

Yes it does.

"Never happened".

"smooth transitions" of features - like 3 toes going into 1 hoof -- never happened.

"you can not tell that three-toed-A is in fact the ancestor of large-hoof-B".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] 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)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice how your "thought experiment" is going when you spin the story about 3 toes turning into 1 large hoof on the same animal?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Sure. Its documented how it happened, of course. The present horse has those itty bitty shin splints at the side which used to be full sized toes. There was an earlier fossil in the sequence with three toes that actually touched the ground. And there was an intermediate stage where the side toes didn't touch the ground and just flopped there, a couple of inches off the ground. Naturally, I had to take a picture of THAT fossil!

Now the classic creationist comeback would be Hey you didn't fill a gap there, you created two more gaps!

Go ahead, BR, lay it on me . . . .

even though the whole world can see that for the bankrupt argument it is . . . .

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
[QB] Sure. Its documented how it happened, of course. The present horse has those itty bitty shin splints at the side which used to be full sized toes.

Wonderful - show that the modern horse ever had the toes please.

Recall that "Stories easy enough to tell" are not the "proof" that is needed.

You need to SHOW the ancestor IS IN FACT the real 3 toed ancestor -- giving birth to hooved offspring!! So that would BE BOTH available at the same time in the same herd - the SAME species apart from the 3 toe difference.

"Continuous phyletic evolution" for that claim - not the gratiuitous assumptions ACROSS species AS IF they were in ancestor decendent relationships - merely strung together by "stories".

In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:

Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] 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)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].

Notice in the above quote - that what Colin Patterson calls “Stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” is euphemistically called “thought experiments” by Gould and Eldredge!

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

[/quote]

 

[BobRyan]

"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.

 

[BobRyan]

Today one may see the platypus as the intermediate between ducks and mamals and might "imagine" it floppying about with the ducks as ducks continued to give birth to platypus offspring -- IF ONLY they were extinct!

But we SEE TODAY that NOTHING OF THE KIND is happening!

They are distinct orders and do not give rise to EACH OTHER!

BUT IF the duckbill had gone extinct then surely we could hoist that skeleton before the masses today and say "look at what the beaver USED to look like" before natural selection DROVE out the duckbill and forced in the more advanced beaver to replace it!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

The shin splints on modern horses are enought to show they had real three toed ancestors, BR! The fossil record also shows it.

I'm so sorry for your theology that all those fossils are there contrary to your theology.

 

[BobRyan]

Finding "other animals" that also have a hoof and even longer shin splints is nice. Do you have "a story easy enough to tell" to go with it? Something that SHOWS that the modern horse descended from a true 3 toed "No-hoof" animal?

Platypus anyone?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In an article published several years ago in Paleobiology, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard, and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, wrote concerning Archaeopteryx:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Smooth intermediates between Baupläne [the German word meaning basic morphological designs or different types of creatures—BH/BT] 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)” [Gould and Eldredge, 1977, 3:147, parenthetical comment in orig.].

Notice in the above quote - that what Colin Patterson calls “Stories easy enough to make up – but they are not science” is euphemistically called “thought experiments” by Gould and Eldredge!

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Oops! Did I already post that??!

 

[BobRyan]

The popularly told (story) example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.[/b] Transitional forms are unknown.
B. Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, Nov 5, 1980, sec. 4 pg 15.

"Throughout the history of horses, the species are well-marked and static over millions of years."
S. Gould, Full House, p. 69.