9. What Fossils and Current Species Should Look Like


 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

fishlegs.gif

A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be exoskeletel “skulls” with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye and ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.

flies.jpg peppered-moth.jpg

If Darwin’s theory is true science, why are there no samples of ongoing evolution today? There are currently about 30 million different species that inhabit the earth. Out of that 30 million, evolutionists cite as proof on ongoing evolution: (1) bacteria that can eat nylon and others that become resistant to antibiotics, (2) flies that don’t mate with other flies after two groups have been separated for a time, and (3) the peppered moth in England that changed colors from white to black, supposedly due to a change that occurred in it’s environment. If anything, this is overwhelming evidence that evolution is not taking place. Any true science would come to that conclusion. But evolution is is made up of mostly imagined fables as proof, and it is so completely lacking in hard evidence, anything that they can find is considered evidence. In any case, the bacteria, flies, and moths are not the kind of evolution that would bring about sight, hearing, or pumping blood; I don’t care how many billions of years are available. Of the trillions of fish in the ocean, aren’t there any that would like to move to land to avoid man’s hooks and those pesky sharks? Where are the fish with gradually growing legs today, or animals with hemi-ping-pong ball eyes? Why is it that evolution only happens when no one is looking? Why are all fossils that would prove evolution in the “not found yet” category? For evolution to be true, we should be living in a world prolific with examples. We should see an ongoing miraculous overwhelming biological phenomena, prevalent everywhere. It isn’t.

There is ample current fossil evidence that single-celled species were the first to appear over three billion yrars ago.  For the the next two billion years, single-celled species made up the entire inventory of life on earth. If you were able to walk the earth at this time, you would be hard pressed to see any sign of life at all.  Then came the Cambrian Explosion.  In a geologic flash, multicelled species appeared as if out of nowhere, with no apparent precursors. According to Richard Dawkins, the Pope of evolution, “The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups.  And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear.  It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”  So the question arises: Where are all of the species that were between the single celled species and the larger multicelled, a.k.a. multi-million celled varieties?  Where are the sixteen celled pnerbias like the one shown above?  Where are the ten celled species that lead to the twenty celled species that lead to the million celled species?   Until evidence of those are found, evolution will remain nothing more than a fantasy.

I made a video of current examples of evolution. Use the lower left arrow to start it, otherwise you will be taken to YouTube.

There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one species into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursors with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about “appearing”? There is no current objective and scientific answer.

In the century and a half since Darwin, the intermediate forms that Darwin was sure would be in the fossil record by now have not shown themselves.  They simply aren’t present after an immense number of costly searches.  Evolution supporters either ignore this fact, or make excuses for its presence.  Paleontologists Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldridge have proposed a different model of evolution, which they name  “punctuated equilibrium,” in which they insist that the fossil record has refuted Darwinism’s “gradualism.” They proposed that changes occurred rapidly followed by long periods of stasis; no evolutionary changes.  Their notion is nothing but an excuse for the complete lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record. As time goes on, and the number of fossil digs grow, evolution  gets buried in a deeper and deeper hole. The changes  in organisms simply don’t show up.

Evolutionauts are constantly bragging about how evolution show such predictability. Except evolution lacks the greatest predictability imaginable, and the one it needs the most: change in fossil organisms showing the morphing of one species into the next. In a book written with Ian Tattersall, another ev-illusionist, Eldredge made this embarrassing and evolution shattering admission: “That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself . . . prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. . . One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.” In a book written jointly in 1988 entitled Integrated Principles of Biology, three evolutionist biologists developed the same point: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different . . . form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.” Maybe it’s time for the biological sciences to reload when it comes to their origins.

Advertisements

44 Comments

  1. Alejandro said,

    All species (even extinct) just appear suddenly, with fully formed structures to live successfully in their enviroments.
    Were are random mutations? Where are the deformed ones? Where are the disproportionate ones? Where are the useful tumors (as you say)? Where are the “chernobyl” victims from cambrian explosion? Does natural selection kill them even before they come to existence?

    • wttmartin9 said,

      The fossil record is not complete. It is well known by interested people that there are massive gaps in the record and why they are missing.

      An example of missing record occurs in China, where the best examples of Cambrian fossils are found. The area below the fossil beds is 40 – 60 million years older than the fossil beds. The layers deposited here have been eroded away due to changes in the sea level.

      The number of organisms actually fossilized is minute compared to the number that existed. Man fossil beds are the result of a catastrophe such as a volcanic eruption, sudden flood or land slide. These events are intermittent.

      If you have a changing population slowly developing new traits in an area that does not suffer any event that would kill hundreds or perhaps even thousands, to leave a few fossils you would never know that intermediate species existed. If the area it was fossilized in was eroded at a later date you would never know it existed. Fossilization is actually an extremely rare event. There are around 30 phyla of life that have no known fossil examples, mostly because they do or did not fossilize.

      Punctuated equilibrium is not out with the idea of Darwinian evolution where by natural selection is speeded up dramatically in changing conditions. Darwinian evolution does not have to be slow and does not have to happen at all if there is no pressure to change. The original species does not have to change either it can start with just a few individuals with a slight advantage. These few individuals could then eventually colonise a larger area. Sometimes they can replace the original species sometimes they can live in a different location or sometimes along side the original species. However it could take many generations and the next catastrophe that buries organisms and fossilizes then could be hundreds or thousands or even millions of years after leaving a completely different ecosystem and range of species fossilized.

      The Idea that the Cambrian was an explosion is only due to a lack of 40-60 million years of known fossils, A recent find in Uruguay may change this along with a find in Gabon of multi cellular life that could be 2.1 billion years old. The Cambrian explosion was actually over a period of 40 million years or so. Not really an explosion at all in other words. T Rex was only around for around 2 million years. As pointed out earlier the layers below the Cambrian are missing from the best known sites in China and also the Burgess Shales in Canada. We may find other areas to locate these fossils in the future.

      In this day and age of supreme amounts of information being available to educate free there is no excuse for ignorance, or taking the word of religious based sites like AIG. The whole idea that someone can still think the earth was flooded and that is how the fossils got there is delusional. You have to ignore all the evidence that it could not have happened. You have to lie to your self and others about what you really think. The theory of evolution is the most tested scientific theory ever and it has been shown to be the best explanation of all the facts. If ever there was a time it was going to crumble it was when DNA profiles were started. This has just strengthened its position not weakened it.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        DNA has killed evolution. It and you just don’t realize it yet. Your stuff is pure dogma. You are describing a history that goes against evolution as if it backs evolution. “Evolution didn’t happen because it didn’t need to happen”. “They didn’t find fossils because they didn’t fossilize” BTW, the T. Rex body type has been around for over 60 million years unchanged. Before you spread your dogma, and claim DNA as your evidence, you better figure out a way evolution came up with the genetic code. The Morse code would have been useless one letter at at time, as would the binary code. The genetic code would be useless one codon at at time, ergo one amino acid at a time. So your claim that DNA strengthened evolution is bullshit pure and simple. DNA is the sword evolution fell on.

  2. Alejandro said,

    useless tumors, sorry for my english lol

  3. Alejandro said,

    I also think if evolution were true, there should be an enormus number of biological classes (or we shouldn’t be talking about classes at all). There should be and/or have been fish-tetrapod transitional forms evolving to other things rather than amphibians. Amphibian/reptile transitional forms evolving to other things rather than reptiles (or remaining for ever as an undefined class). Rptile/mammal transitional forms evolving to other things rather than mammals (or undefined classes giving birth to an enormus number of other undefined classes not cassifiable as reptiles, nor as mammals). The same thing with theropods to birds. Some birds today should be evolving to other things rather than birds, and mammals evolving to other things rather than mammals showing vestigial mammary glands in females. There should be still today advanced (bigfoot-like) apes that didn’t evolve to humans.
    I mean the offspring of the transitional forms should be still today and giving birth to another big number of transitional forms, overcoming widely the “tree of life” we actually know today.
    But the “transitional forms” are only found in the fossil record, and with an imaginary reconstruction of the soft tissue they can bend the evidence in the way they want.
    This is my philosophical point of view of “What Fossils and Current Species Should Look Like”.

  4. hooseyadaddy said,

    The real problem is evolutionists cite a couple critters that are found thousands of miles apart as “evidence” for evolution. There really should be thousands of these fossils everywhere. Transitional fossils should technically out number the fully developed ones. But it also goes back to how did lets say, archeoptryx, know that inorder for flight to be acheived it has to develop wings and feathers? Its fully possible for evolution and a “designer” I call him God to coexist. But for some reason Darwinists use evolution to disprove God.

  5. stevebee92653 said,

    There may be some mix. Evolution certainly did (does) occur. But it’s such a small percentage of what we are. I really was a firm evolutionaut for years. But the more I studied, and the more I got into it, the farther it fell, until it became a full on crash. I love the subject of our origins, but I feel much much farther away from any kind of answer in my mind than when I started this thing a few years ago. In searching for an answer, I have less of one. It’s easy to cave a bit and allow in evolution, but everywhere I look it’s such a huge impossibility…..I can’t cave in to it. I try to wonder, what would you actually see if you were there to watch the first day we had bird fliers. Evolution would say you would have a bunch of semi-birds flopping around in the sky, all at the same time. Creationists would say on the third day……I wonder if you would really notice anything. Would birds just kind of start flying in the skies out of nowhere? I wish I could think of another possibility than the above, but I can’t.

  6. 2005FLSTCI said,

    Steve,
    I appreciate your inquisitive and skeptical nature and look forward to reading on in your blog.
    Perhaps you pose similar questions yourself later, but this seemed a likely place to get a response, so here goes…
    1. My understanding of the ev viewpoint is that ALL life is transitional because there is no FINISH LINE.
    2. If a. there is no goal in MNS, and b. most mutations are deleterious or neutral, what is the estimated percentage of useful vs. neutral-harmful mutations? Has anyone tried to put a number on this?
    3. I would expect this percentage to be less than .01% since they are completely random, maybe with many more zeros preceding the 1. (I got no math skillz)
    4. This said I would expect random mutations to be the NECESSARY rule rather than the exception to the rule just to conform to the math.
    5. Wouldn’t most life be CONSTANTLY growing random TRIAL eyes, ears, noses, etc…?
    6. As it is very difficult to make a fossil –and most fossils should have either deleterious or neutral mutations according to the math- why do they all look fully formed and “normal” (no fish covered head-to-tail in fins, or eighteen-legged mammals)?
    Ultimately the numbers trip me up on evo every time. I just can’t buy it.

  7. stevebee92653 said,

    Thanks for the spot on and well thought out comment. You have well summarized my thinking on D. evolution. I think if you have the time to read my blog, or see some of my vids, you will see that to be the case. I have put your comment on my favorite comments section. I just started that page, and some of the comments I get are excellent, like yours, and they have a slightly different perspective than the one I have developed, and they are very helpful. Again, great comment!

  8. Shrunk said,

    2005FLSTCI:

    “As it is very difficult to make a fossil –and most fossils should have either deleterious or neutral mutations according to the math- why do they all look fully formed and “normal” (no fish covered head-to-tail in fins, or eighteen-legged mammals)?”

    That’s a pretty strange misunderstanding of evolution you’re displaying there. Maybe you should try learning the theory from people who actually understands it, rather than this website.

    A seven legged calf was recently born in Colorado:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-23-freakcalf_N.htm

    According to what you’re saying, this calf should have survived, procreated and produced an entire breed of multilegged cattle before being subject to natural selection. As you can see in the story, though, the unfortunate creature died after only ten minutes. THAT is natural selection at work. Of course, most mutations do not produce effects this dramatic or that will be subject to such extreme and immediate negative selection. However, if a mutation can produce such an extreme change in a single generation, why can’t you accept that it will produce the minor, incremental changes that are part of the actual (not the strawman) process of evolution?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Only extreme “bad” mutations are formed. No extreme “good ones”. The good ones are invisible just like the fairies you evos like to talk about. But that doesn’t make you wonder, does it? Why? Because you are an indoctrinated evolutionaut.
      And where did you get this Shrunk: “Well, it seems Steve’s now started to censor posts that refute his position”.
      Another embarrassing lie from you . What the hell is the matter with you? Do you ever tell the truth? Has your nose evolved into a bigger and bigger one?

      • Shrunk said,

        “Only extreme “bad” mutations are formed. No extreme “good ones”.

        Standard evolutionary theory does not hold that “extreme good” mutations occur. You’re thinking of saltationism.

        “And where did you get this Shrunk: ‘Well, it seems Steve’s now started to censor posts that refute his position’.
        Another embarrassing lie from you . What the hell is the matter with you? Do you ever tell the truth? Has your nose evolved into a bigger and bigger one?

        Here’s the evidence, which I have already provided on pg. 20 and you ignored:

        http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=83134#p2023457

        If you have another explanation besides censorship, let’s hear it.

      • Shrunk said,

        Since you’ve explained elsewhere that the missing posts may have resulted from no actiions of your own, I withdraw my accusation of censorship. My apologies if I jumped the gun.

    • Jay said,

      According to what you’re saying, this calf should have survived, procreated and produced an entire breed of multilegged cattle before being subject to natural selection. As you can see in the story, though, the unfortunate creature died after only ten minutes. THAT is natural selection at work. Of course, most mutations do not produce effects this dramatic or that will be subject to such extreme and immediate negative selection. However, if a mutation can produce such an extreme change in a single generation, why can’t you accept that it will produce the minor, incremental changes that are part of the actual (not the strawman) process of evolution?

      you cite the cow but it says in the article that the cow resulted from the incomplete splitting of of the embryo into twins. this would have never resulted in a new species.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You need to ask yourself an obvious question: If many bad mutations are large and easily visible, why aren’t good ones? They have never been demonstrated or found. So, you go for big bad ones, small bad ones. You accept little invisible good ones, and that there are no big good ones. Why do I find that strange?

  9. Shrunk said,

    “You need to ask yourself an obvious question: If many bad mutations are large and easily visible, why aren’t good ones? They have never been demonstrated or found. So, you go for big bad ones, small bad ones. You accept little invisible good ones, and that there are no big good ones. Why do I find that strange?”

    I’ve already given you an example of a “little good mutation” on page one of your blog: Warfarin resistance in rats, which has caused rat population increases of 200% in Britain. In typical fashion, you simply brushed it off without even making an effort respond. “The Ecophysiologist” also gave you another example of a mutation that has allowed the development of the human brain. No beneficial mutations? Sorry, wrong.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      When someone gives an absurd answer, I don’t waste my time on it. Like I am doing now.

      • Shrunk said,

        You say there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. I give you an example of one. You continue to insist there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. Who’s being absurd here?

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Shrunk: You are incapable of reading then absorbing a quite simple question or statement. You answer what you wish I asked, as do cali and ecophysiologist. How did you guys get through school? Try taking reading comprehension. Then when you improve at that, read the statement that I wrote for Jay. Then if you think you can respond, great.

      • Shrunk said,

        As has already been explained to you, “large and easily visible” beneficial mutations of the sort you seem to be expecting are not part of evolutionary theory. They would be examples of saltation. The Wikipedia discussion of the term is pretty accurate:

        “In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, “leap”) is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for occasionally hypothesized, nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate, standard concepts – gradualism – involved in neo-Darwinian evolution.”

        IOW the evidence you are asking for would actually DISPROVE neo-Darwinian evolution. What you are saying, in effect, is “Since the type of change that would disprove neo-Darwinism is never found, then neo-Darwinism is false.” Sorry, I don’t think I’m the one with comprehension problems.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Visible mutations of the type that would support your belief system do not exist. So, you make excuses in hopes that they will satisfy a skeptic like me. Why don’t you wonder yourself instead of defending a questionable and dead theory?

      • Shrunk said,

        BTW, Steve, what do you make of this story:

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

      • stevebee92653 said,

        I deem it as grasping at straws. It’s so pathetic how this supposed respectable science has to jump through hoops to find ANYTHING as evidence. Very sad. Out of a billion species that have inhabited the earth, and 30 million today, and the incredible and incredible number of complex biological/physiological systems that have supposedly evolved, you need cecal valves and bigger heads on lizards as an evidence? It would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. You can’t see the total absurdity?

      • Shrunk said,

        So cecal valves aren’t examples of “healthy utilitarian tissues” appearing “in just the right shape and amount to advance the design of an evolving physiological system”?

        Why don’t you just stick your fingers in your ears and say, “Na, na, I can’t hear you!”? That’s in effect what you’re doing.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        You win. Cecal valves in lizards are a wonderful example of how complex organ systems evolved. Evo at it’s best! I am now a full believer.

      • Shrunk said,

        So again, I ask you: What are you expecting to observe in your lifetime of a process that occurs over millions of years? Do you believe in plate tectonics (After your dog/wolf debacle, I don’t feel safe making any assumptions about what aspects of science you accept)? If so, why? Has anyone actually observed continental land masses splitting and moving thousands of miles apart from each other? So why do you accept the ideas of the “geology-nauts”?

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Dog wolf debacle: only in your brainwashed eyes.In your fantasies, you think you know what occurred tens of thousands of years ago. I don’t.
        Is there evidence that plates have moved over millions of years? Of course. The geographic record shows it.
        Is there evidence that complex visual systems, arms, legs, wings evolved over millions of years. Of course not. Bad try. As usual.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Since there are zero mutations that produce healthy utilitarian tissues, and place that tissue in just the right shape and amount to advance the design of an evolving physiological system, we can conclude that:
      (1) Evolution is a fallacy.
      (2) Evolution is real but the evidence is invisible.
      And your rats that don’t die from poison doesn’t fit the answer, so give that up. Me, I will take (1). You can have (2).

      • Shrunk said,

        Steve, why don’t you give a hypothetical example of what you would consider the “correct” type of beneficial mutation? Then we can either provide an example, or correct any misconceptions you might have (or admit that you’re right. 🙂 ).

    • stevebee92653 said,

      If you can’t figure out what you need to show, I can’t help you. If you actually think rodents that gain resistance to poison is a good example, when you need to show how alimentary systems, visual systems, heart/lung systems evolved from nothing, you shouldn’t be debating. Your example is laughable. You are so indoctrinated you are unable to discuss on an intelligent basis anyway. Cali, ecophysiologist, adparker ditto. You at rd.net are a group of enthusiastic brainwashed people who think everyone who questions your brainwashing is real dumb. It’s a kick to watch you make fun of skeptics, when you should spend some time self analyzing.

      • Shrunk said,

        It was a pretty simple question I asked, Steve. If you’re incapable of answering without going on yet another of your pointless rants, I guess I’ll just have to live with that and make my own assumptions about what you’re asking for. You seem to persist in your belief that “alimentary systems, visual systems, heart/lung systems evolved from nothing.” That’s simply incorrect. You seem to think that evolution requires that entire clumps of “utilitarian tissues” appear all at once as a result of mutations. So, for instance, an organism that possesses a functioning heart that lacks a mitral valve will have an offspring whose heart has that valve. Is that how you think it works? If so, you’re just plain wrong. If not, please clarify what you DO mean. Or go on yet another rant that shows you are unable to answer the question. Whatever works for you.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Re: It was a pretty simple question I asked, Steve.

      The answer is also simple, and you don’t have one. And you can’t figure out the question. So what a waste of time.

      Re: You seem to persist in your belief that “alimentary systems, visual systems, heart/lung systems evolved from nothing.” That’s simply incorrect.

      Please name all biological/physiological systems that existed on the earth 4 BYA.

      Re: You seem to think that evolution requires that entire clumps of “utilitarian tissues” appear all at once as a result of mutations.

      You are so smart you know what I think? Show tissue slowly evolving. Any way you want. Just show SOMETHING. You can’t, so don’t waste your time. It doesn’t exist.

  10. jan said,

    Shrunk, (What kind of name is that? does that unconsciously refer to what you think about your brain size? I dont think that…..you are human…. and that means you have a brain very similar to any other human….)

    “So again, I ask you: What are you expecting to observe in your lifetime of a process that occurs over millions of years?”

    Shrunk……What the hell are you expecting to “observe” in your lifetime that will give you the demonstrative evidence that you claim is there to corroborate your speculations…..You, and your sympathetic philosophers are under the same standards that anybody else is…….DEMONSTRATE YOUR BELIEFS…………….WITH HARD FACTSSSS…..OR SHUT UP ABOUT YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONSS…..YOU AND YOURS TAKE, IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, HUGE TRIVIAL EVIDENCE, AND CLAIM YOU HAVE THE ANSWERS…… NOT YET BUTTHOLE. YOU AND YOURS HAVE HUGE DUES TO PAY(FINDING ADEQUATE EVIDENCE) BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE THOSE CLAIMES……………TO ANYBODY EXCEPT THE GULLIBLE MEDIA TRANCED PUBLIC……..

  11. jan said,

    Shrunk, do you realize how stupid you are???????? Apparenly you have really bought into the last several decades of speculation presented as science in (what seems to be) an attempt to justify your philosophical preferences and wishes….. and replaced (if you really had one in the first place) a scientific disposition for some sort of personal vendeta against some other philosophical belief system……. Go home and retire you (old age or not) worn out bastard. Let REAL SCIENCE MOVE FORWARD………..

  12. jan said,

    Shrunk, do you realize how stupid you are???????? Apparenly you have really bought into the last several decades of speculation presented as science in (what seems to be) an attempt to justify your philosophical preferences and wishes….. and replaced (if you really had one in the first place) a scientific disposition for some sort of personal vendeta against some other philosophical belief system……. Go home and retire you (old age or not) worn out bastard. Let REAL SCIENCE MOVE FORWARD………..

  13. jan said,

    Shrunk……………………… do you realize how stupid you are???????? Apparenly you have really bought into the last several decades of speculation presented as science in (what seems to be) an attempt to justify your philosophical preferences and wishes….. and replaced (if you really had one in the first place) a scientific disposition for some sort of personal vendeta against some other philosophical belief system……. Go home and retire you (old age or not) worn out bastard. Let REAL SCIENCE MOVE FORWARD………..

  14. guess who said,

    “So why do you accept the ideas of the “geology-nauts”?”

    evidently, in your mind…..everything is in a “blender” with simplistic distinctions…. is that right? Shrunk?????? Your mind is zero’d in on a point of view that exempts your ideas from contributing to “real” scientific contribution……

  15. jan said,

    hey shrunk, are you out there still?, you coward……..

  16. jan said,

    “So again, I ask you: What are you expecting to observe in your lifetime of a process that occurs over millions of years?”

    shrunk you bonehead. What relevance is your question regarding ” TRUE HISTORY.” cant you see what is meant here? NOBODY KNOWS OR WILL EVER KNOW. DON’T YOU GET IT? Shut your face up and give thought to a mind that you possess as a source of your speculations, and utilizing a “mental capacity” to be able to go well beyond the mental capacity to try and describe the un-describable.

  17. jan said,

    “So again, I ask you: What are you expecting to observe in your lifetime of a process that occurs over millions of years?”

    Shrunk, when i look at this question again, let me ask you this? how, in your lifetime, can you claim you can adequately demonstrate that the processes in living organisms that can be currently observed through scientific technology, can be scientifically demonstrated to have occured in any kind of way that would support the amazingly trite assertions the evolutionary crowd is thrusting (largely through the pop culture feeding trough) into the gullible (tax paying) publics throat? You are such a hypocrite, you need to re-examine your ability to support your claims.

  18. jan said,

    November 12, 2009 at 4:36 am

    “So again, I ask you: What are you expecting to observe in your lifetime of a process that occurs over millions of years?”

    Shrunk, when i look at this question again, let me ask you this? how, in your lifetime, can you claim you can adequately demonstrate that the processes in living organisms that can be currently observed through scientific technology, can be scientifically demonstrated to have occured in any kind of way that would support the amazingly trite assertions the evolutionary crowd is thrusting (largely through the pop culture feeding trough) into the gullible (tax paying) publics throat? You are such a hypocrite, you need to re-examine your ability to support your claims.

    SHRUNK, WHERE ARE YOU YOU STUPID ASSHOLE? WHAT IS YOUR REPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS POSED? I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING IN. GIVE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION OR SHUT UP.

  19. Dwilkes7 said,

    I know this is an old thread, I would like to point out a few things. Shrunk was pointing to Warfarin resistance in some rats as an example of evolution. I see this kind of argument all the time when talking to evolutionists. First of all, any “ADAPTATION” that leaves the animal, bacteria, insect, etc…, the same life form is NOT an example of evolution. The adaptation does NOT change the “animal” into something else, all it does is show resistance adaptation and nothing more. If the adaptation leaves, (for instance), the rat a rat is not now, nor will it be a bridge to a brand new species in the future. If you would know the rest of the story, it should show you how wrong you are. Warfarin has a half life of 40 hours. Rats eat several meals a day, thus there is a generous “overlap” between meals. All that is being said is that they have some Warfarin resistance, They are NOT Warfarin PROOF! All that is necessary to kill them, is to put out MORE food than the average block of Warfairn laced food.

    The other thing noted is that these “resistant” animals were most likely ALREADY present in the population. The resistance WAS NOT a NEW “instruction set” added to the DNA/RNA, it was already there, just as resistance to poison oak is already in the human genome. (I have a very high resistance to poison oak, I can rub it on my skin and not have any reaction to it at all). My brothers don’t have this resistance and are miserable because of it. I have 4 adult children who are still HUMAN and only one has the same resistance. If you do your math right, within a few generations the trait most likely be gone. I have met not 1 person in my life with this same trait (although I have not “tested” them all). Just by my own observation I would say it is very rare. If you want to know about the math, I refer you to Haldane’s Dilemma. I know how you EVOs love to point to papers refuting these things. Please read this: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm before you answer, thank you.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Great comment. It went to my favorite comments page. Thanks!

    • wolfgang said,

      Indeed just like the 7 legged calf exemple he was boasting of , nothing new occured, no new organ just an existing gene over expressing itself, and yes a 7 legged calf would fall over its legs insteed of going faster.
      The rat resistance exemple could be pro micro-mini-evolution but also pro ID : if indeed some kind of a higher power had put us here off course he would have shaped us including an adaptive system to changing environment (food, temperature, sun exposure) therefore features as slightly evolvable features as skin and digestion.
      We should be able to survive food change in environment.
      If not all his creation would go down the drain at the first climate change.
      Which explains the rat exemple, which explains lactose resistance in some humans and gluten resistance in most humans. Most of these changes are however changes of the intake of bacteria in our guts doing the work for us and not our inner selves.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: