Religion of Evolution

When we went through the Smithsonian we took them to the exhibit on abiogenesis and showed them the "story" told there about a reducing atmosphere and amonia seas. Then we took them 20 feet away to the exhibit on basement rock -- "banded iron" -- "iron OXIDE".

It was ... "instructive".

We showed them the precambrian explosion as illustrated at the Smithsonian...

again ... "Instructive".

We showed them the failed horse seriest... another "instructive" piece of data.

It was not hard to expose the flaws in the "myths" and "stories" of evolutionism when looking at the data.

In Christ,

Bob

 

??What failed about the horse series??

?? What's wrong with a layer of iron oxide appearing AFTER LIFE IS ESTABLISHED??

 

In fact, the banded iron deposits are evidence for evolution. The oxidized bands show increasing oxygen tension (and lots of microfossils) followed by a crash of the population due to oxygen poisoning, and then a band of reduced iron, until the population again rises and produces more oxygen.

Until oxygen-tolerant species evolved, this is the way it worked.

I suppose we could go over the horse series for Rob and see where he thinks the limits of variation might be.

How about it, Rob? Want to start with Hyracotherium and see where it goes?

 

The existence of Archaen Banded Iron eliminates the myth of a reducing atmosphere.

===============================

The reference to Eohippus is absolutely ludicrous. The whole “Horse Series” concept was completely thrown away by leading evolutionists starting in the 1950s!

The preeminent evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson believed that horses evolved. But, he was honest enough to admit that the “Horse Series” drawn up a couple of decades earlier, and propagated to this day in textbooks, was a fraud.

“The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature.” Life of the Past, 1953, p. 119. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Other eminent evolutionists agreed with him.
“. . . 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.” Dr. David M. Raup, Evolutionist, Paleontologist and Curator of the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25. [Emphasis added - ed.]

“The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed, fox-sized creatures, living nearly 50 million years ago, to todays 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. Transitional forms are unknown.”
Boyce Rensberger, Senior Editor of Science 80, in “Ideas on Evolution Going Through a Revolution Among Scientists,” Houston Chronicle, 5 November 1980, sec. 5, p. 15. [Emphasis added - ed.]

Worse still is that the greatest of evolutionary believing scientists admit that there are no such “series” of any kind found in the fossil bearing layers.

The late great spokesman for evolutionism, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977): p. 14. [Emphasis added - ed.]

George Gaylord Simpson wrote:
“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes, both vertebrate and invertebrate.” Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107. [Emphasis added - ed.]

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (the most honest evolutionist that I have ever known), senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter “I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?
. . . You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” 10 April 1979 [Emphasis added - ed.]

In Christ,

Bob

 

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, 1983, Norton, New York.

 

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."

Dr. Patterson "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

But even better is his response to the quote.

"Dear Mr Theunissen,
Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. 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 favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson"

It should be obvious by now that he was not saying that there are not transitional forms but that you cannot tell for sure whether a given specimen is on the direct line to another or if it is a side branch.

You really should have put these quotes over on the "junk" science thread. They help make my point of what the YEC leaders are willing to do. Including quoting so far out of context that the quotes appear to have the opposite meaning.

 

Making the same mistake here as you did with Gould. Simpson advocated "quantum evolution" which was a similar idea to what was later termed puncuated equilibrium later by Gould and Elderidge. Just like you can often misquote G&E easily when they are talking about PE, you can easily do the same thing to Simpson. Why don't you provide us a more full quote so we can see what Simpson was talking about? I'll bet that he was explaining that you do not see overwhelming transitionals because of the spotty fossil record and because most change happens rapidly and in small groups. Different than saying that that there have not been any transitionals at all. Plus, we have found a lot of fossils since 1944!

 

If you go back and read the whole section in context, you will find that Raup was talking about how the change seen in the fossil record is not as gradual and smooth as Darwin might have supposed. Instead, we find that the record is "jerky." And in light of the jerkiness, the view of the evolution of the horse had to be modified but not dropped or abandoned. He is not speaking of the horse specifically, but the general nature of the fossil record. This is not doubt of the horse record by Raup.

 

Again, you are taking quotes about PE out of context. For instance, in the same article you also find

"Recent discoveries have only strengthened Darwin's epochal conclusion that all forms of life evolved from a common ancestor. Genetic analysis, for example, has shown that every organism is governed by the same genetic code controlling the same biochemical processes."

While talking about the controversy over PE, he later addresses exactly what you ar doing.

"No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight. This fact has often been exploited by religious fundamentalists who misunderstood it to suggest weakness in the fact of evolution rather than the perceived mechanism. Actually, it reflects significant progress toward a much deeper understanding of the history of life on Earth."

Also, a very similar article by the same author appeared in a different newspaper the previous day but without the quote you use. This suggests that the quote may not even be the author's.

 

I might as well show how all of your quotes are wrong.

Simpson was not saying that there was a problem with the horse sequence. He was arguing against an outdated idea call orthogenesis. This simply said that evolution proceeded in a straight line. A evolves directly to B without any side branches or intermediates. He was attempting to show that this idea was wrong by showing how jerky the horse series was. It was "uniform, continuous transformation" that he was arguing against.

Let's give the quote in context.

"The evolution of the horse family included, indeed, certain trends, but none of these was undeviating or orthogenetic. The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature. Increases in size, for instance, did not occur at all during the first third of the whole history of the family. Then it occurred quite irregularly, at different rates and to different degrees in a number of different lines of descent. Even after a trend toward larger size had started it was reversed in several groups of horses which became smaller instead of larger. As already briefly noted, the famous “gradual reduction of the side toes” also is something that never happened. There was no reduction for the 15 or 20 million years of the history. There was relatively rapid reduction from four front toes to three (the hind foot already had only three toes). Many horses simply retained the new sort of foot without further change. In one group there was later another relatively rapid change of foot mechanism involving some reduction in size of the side toes, which, however, remained functional. Thereafter most horses retained this type of foot without essential change. In just one group, again, another relatively rapid change eliminated functional side toes, after which their descendants simply retained the new sort of foot. (Fig. 39)

In the history of the horse family there is no known trend that affected the whole family. Moreover, in any one of the numerous different lines of descent there is no known trend that continued uniformly in the same direction and at the same rate throughout. Trends do not really have to act that way: there are not really orthogenetic.

(The evolution of the horse family, Equidae, is now no better known than that of numerous other groups of organisms, but it is still a classic example of evolution in action, and a very instructive example when correctly presented…)"

 

SO do you now have some quotes for us to support your assertion that "the existence of Archaen Banded Iron eliminates the myth of a reducing atmosphere."

 

Bob, take a look at these two skeletons, and tell me if there is enough variation to call them two separate kinds.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/hyracoskel.jpg

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/images/oroh.gif

They are roughly the same size. Teeth are almost identical.

So, are they one kind, or two?

 

How "sad" that you must "pretend" not to get the point each time this is pointed out UTEOTW.

EACH time you find that your OWN EVOLUTIONIST sources are not supporting you -- you simply come back with "YES but they are STILL atheist evolutionists." And you do this knowing that I will just KEEP responding with "SEE these atheists had no other choice when confronted with evolutionism's failings -- what is YOUR reason?".

The question was asked as to WHY I knew that even EVOLUTIONISTS admitted to the fraudlent claims of the horse series - as fraudlent, wrong and basically "a story" told by those who "wanted" to believe in it.

I then post the EVOLUTIONISTS that confess that -- and instead of admitting to the clear problem - you try to misdirect in defense of more "stories".

Surely you can not stand behind such methods!

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "salient" point being that EVEN EVOLUTIONISTS admit that they "Tell stories" even though FACTS are not in suport of those stories.

The Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers is but one example.

It is given in text book after text book - NOT because it HAPPENED but because it is "story" evolutionists like to tell.

Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers is given in text book after textbook - NOT because it "HAPPENED" but because it is another factless "story" that evolutionists like to tell.

So WHEN evolutionists THEMSELVES finally admit to being caught in "yet" another Nebraska-man story - do they throw out their humanist atheist devoted belief in evolutionism?? Obviously NOT!

They cling to still "other stories" NO DOUBT! Retreating from one -- and clasping onto the next. Clearly they "believe" the horse evolved. But too much LIGHT OF DAY has shown on Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers so that now it must be left behind in the dark ages.

But it was a good story for the ride and that is "the point".

UTEOTW then "pretends" that he saves the day by assuring us that "ATHEIST evolutionists are STILL atheist evolutionists EVEN AFTER they confess to their duplicity in the horse series stories".

No doubt UTEOTW -- we never doubted that.

Yet UTEOTW goes on "as if" this point was not raised time after time after time.

Note:

My hat is off to UTEOTW's "blinders-on" perseverence in spite of the data.

But if you keep saying that "atheist evolutionists are STILL evolutionists after admitting to problem in evolutionism" - I will KEEP saying "YES but that it because as ATHEISTS they have NO other choice".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob

I do not have to pretend to not get anything.

I have consistently shown that YECers are unable to quote scientists properly. Whether it is the leaders who have provided you with these fine examples of quote mining, or you yourself trying to claim that scientists who thought that archy was transitional really only though that it was a unique bird or ignoring your entropy experts when they tell you in the very places where you get your quotes why it was not a problem.

In this case, it should be obvious to any one that reads the quotes from you and then the context what happened. You took three quotes that talked about how the horse series is jerky. How it will go in one direction and then backwards and then forward again. How the changes are not smooth and continuous in one direction but are instead uneven and not always in the same direction. But how when taken in totality that they still give an excellent picture of evolution in action. YOu take those quotes and slice them and dice them until it appears, from what little is quoted, that these experts have said that the supposed horse series is worthless. When in context they said no such thing.

The same thing was done with the other, more general quotes.

Now I don't blame you for the original quotes. I blame the dishonest persons who lifted and twisted them to begin with. You do have a small measure of blame for not checking them before you posted them, but not much. You were trusting in people who claim to be Christians to treat you honestly.

But I do blame you for trying to defend such when the misrepresentation is pointed out to you. I really thought you would just leave those quotes alone once they were exposed and move on to something else.

But there is something more important here. Is it not easy to see what happens when those who have been taught that the evidence really points to a young earth and we have these things from the scientists that support us and evolution is theory "in crisis" and all that junk that they are fed... What happens when these people see claims like those quotes exposed. It is obvious that whoever tracked those quotes down initially set out to deliberately deceive. There is no way they could have read the source material and not realized that they were quoting something different that what the author was trying to convey. They lied. And when vulnerable people see that those that they trusted to tell them the truth were lying in order to try and defend their beliefs...Well, can you not see how some will wonder if it is not all a lie? Do you not see how this activity can cause some to lose their faith? Can you not see how unbelievers exposed to such tactics will become so much harder to reach if they think that it takes lies to defend our faith? Can you not see why I think of YEC as such a threat?

 

Bob

Why do you contiue to pretend to not see that Simpson was saying that orthogenesis was a bad idea and not that there is a problem with the horse series?

You even give away that you know this when you take the full quote that I gave you and hack back out the part where he goes through the intermediate stages before you repost it attempting to make a point.

Please do not dig yourself a deeper hole. The quote abviously was about the evolution of the horse not being a smooth, gradual afair. It was not that the horse sequence is a fraud. Please move on to another topic. The full quote in context really exposes the original quote for the dishonest hack job that it was.

 

In an effort to clarify for UTEOTW and to add some salient points from his quote above -- I will respost this litany of evolutionist confessions to the practice of junk-science in evolutionism.

I do so fully expecting that these atheist evolutionists have "no other choice" and no "other faith" and so must cling to evolutionism "anyway".

But the "story-story-upon-story" nature of evolutionism's junk science is "still evident" to the objective reader..

Sample it again my friends.

Other eminent evolutionists agreed with him.

Worse still is that the greatest of evolutionary believing scientists admit that there are no such “series” of any kind found in the fossil bearing layers.

The late great spokesman for evolutionism, Dr. Stephen J. Gould, wrote:

George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

The late Dr. Colin Patterson (senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, wrote in a letter

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

Huh?

"Bad Idea"!! Yes He said it was a BAD idea!!

But to the objective mind that employs critical thinking - he said one or two other important things. Pardon me while I quote him "again".

A little evolutionistic-revisionism for us UTEOTW???

The horse SERIES shows a SERIES of gradual changes... If those gradual changes - don't exist... then... hmm... what does that mean about the SERIES...

Now that is a really tough one. I can see why you would pretend to be confused there.

Hmm so that HORSE SERIES SHOWING smooth gradual transition ... 'never existed'???

Is that what you are trying to say??

JUNK Science exhibit #4!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you saying that all of that is from ...Dr. Patterson "Evolution" 1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. ???

In Christ,

Bob

 

UTEOTW -- there "has" to be a point at which you get at least one fact correct in our discussion. I can't believe you are so committed to getting it wrong "every time". Surely there is at least one exchange where you can just stick with the facts.

The salient point here is that the much touted series was nothing more than a "story". The SERIES SHOWED smooth transition. BUT NOW all admit that NOTHING OF THE KIND is supported by the data.

You keep leaping off the track on this simple and obvious point - arguing "YES but atheist evolutionists STILL think horses evolved!!".

No doubt UTEOTW!!

Now please - try to stay with the point. Get at "least one" - understand it and respond to it. I am not saying you have to like it - but you should at least have as much integrity on the point being made as those atheist evolutionists being quoted.

In Christ,

Bob