Science and Technology news... :: View topic - TOBS: Evolutionists disagreements\ The Fossil Record.. how a

jabriol · Guest

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.”

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin “was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.” In
fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, “we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin’s time,” explained
the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more
abundant fossil evidence available today shows that
some of the examples that were once used to support
evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support
gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In
The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke
of “the general failure of the record to display
gradual transitions from one major group to another.”
He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never
has been, in accord with [slow evolution].” Niles
Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Zachriel · Guest

"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...
[quote]
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago>s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin>s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn>t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."
[/quote]
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting his
views, by making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution.
Please retract your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing
that you are properly representing his views.

[quote]In
fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin>s time," explained
the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more
abundant fossil evidence available today shows that
some of the examples that were once used to support
evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support
gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In
The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke
of "the general failure of the record to display
gradual transitions from one major group to another."
He said: "The known fossil record is not, and never
has been, in accord with [slow evolution]."
[/quote]
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Stanley>s views, by
making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution. Please retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.

[quote]Niles
Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist."

[/quote]
That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Eldredge>s views, by
making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution. Please retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.

jabriol · Guest

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...
[quote]
"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago>s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin>s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn>t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting his
views, by making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution.
Please retract your misrepresentation or provide additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.

[/quote]
no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.

[quote]
In
fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, "we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin>s time," explained
the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more
abundant fossil evidence available today shows that
some of the examples that were once used to support
evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support
gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In
The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke
of "the general failure of the record to display
gradual transitions from one major group to another."
He said: "The known fossil record is not, and never
has been, in accord with [slow evolution]."

That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Stanley>s views,
by
making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution. Please
retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.
[/quote]
Nope, that is not my intent, that is your interpretation.. and the
commentary coming from the source mentioned wher many have read it before
usenet.

[quote]

Niles
Eldredge also admitted: "The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist."

That is a quote out-of-context. You are misrepresenting Eldredge>s views,
by
making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological evolution. Please
retract
your misrepresentation or provide additional content showing that you are
properly representing his views.

[/quote]
Not at all, you are giving your own interpretation of what you are reading.
and by the by I will post more material.
the bottom line is that these guys gave their well educated opinion on what
they are viewing, in no way shape or form are they claiming to disallow the
theory.

Steven J. · Guest

jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message news:<20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com>...
[quote]Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago?s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: ?Darwin?s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.?

There are two points to be noted here.[/quote]

First of all, merely because fossils ar closely linked to evolution in
the public mind, that does not mean that fossils are the best evidence
for common descent. Rather, the best evidence for common descent is
the nested hierarchy of life -- its arrangement in groups linked by
many shared traits, nested uniquely in groups linked by only some of
these shared traits, and so down the tree of life -- and in the
pattern of "similar structures for dissimilar functions (including
vestigial structures), and dissimilar structures for similar functions
(contrary to the creationist explanation of homology as 'common
design')." Biogeography -- e.g. the domination of Australia>s fauna
by marsupials, which are rare or extinct elsewhere, or the similarity
of the unique Galapagoes fauna to that of nearby South America rather
than to the geologically similar Cape Verde Islands off Africa -- also
supports evolution.

Secondly, note that the Bulletin speaks of "darwinian interpretations"
of the history of life, not the question of whether life has an
(evolutionary) history at all. Although Darwin himself allowed that
evolution might operate at different speeds, his steadfast abhorrence
of "saltational" changes (one species giving rise in one generation to
another) led to "Darwinism" being associated with the idea of slow,
constant change over time. Periods of rapid evolution followed by
periods of stasis ("punctuated equilibrium") are often seen as
nonDarwinian, even though Darwin>s theory allows for them.
[quote]
Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin ?was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn?t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.? In
fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, ?we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin?s time,? explained
the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more
abundant fossil evidence available today shows that
some of the examples that were once used to support
evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support
gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In
The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke
of ?the general failure of the record to display
gradual transitions from one major group to another.?
He said: ?The known fossil record is not, and never
has been, in accord with [slow evolution].? Niles
Eldredge also admitted: ?The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist.?

Again, neither Stanley nor Eldredge is denying the existence of[/quote]
transitional fossils, or other evidence for evolution. Eldrege
accepts the famous horse series, and other fossil series, as important
evidence for evolution. What he denies is that they show either a
straight line of progress from primitive to modern forms (rather, they
fall into a complex tree of different forms, each adapted to its
contemporary environment rather than simply making a living as a
transition towards something "better"), nor a slow, steady pace of
constant change (rather, species persist with little or no change, and
are suddenly (in geological time, in which thousands of years can
vanish into the cracks of geological history) being replaced by a very
similar (in the same "kind") species. In other words, the fossils
that are most conspicuously missing are those that show the sort of
change (within "kinds") that creationists and IDers are most likely to
accept.

-- Steven J.
[quote]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com[/quote]

Dave Oldridge · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

[quote]
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...

"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago>s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin>s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn>t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.

no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
[/quote]
We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.

Zachriel · Guest

<hmm. I don>t see jabriol>s reply, except as quoted here>

"Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLEAVETHISOUT@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns93DAB9D6F3FD5doldridgsprintca@142.77.1.194...
[quote]"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:3f3fa913$0$8955$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:dYM%a.5540$nI2.2217686116@twister2.starband.net...

"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com...

Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago>s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: "Darwin>s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true."

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin "was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn>t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are misrepresenting
his views, by making it seem as if he doesn>t accept biological
evolution. Please retract your misrepresentation or provide
additional content
showing
that you are properly representing his views.

no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
[/quote]
I certainly can>t read your mind. However, their views are misrepresented.
Each of these scientists fully accepts the Theory of Evolution.

[quote]We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.[/quote]

jabriol · Guest

"J.R." <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.0308170827.7b9af807@posting.google.com...
[quote]jabriol <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:<20030817145912.50369.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com>...
Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind. But the
Bulletin of Chicago?s Field Museum of Natural History
commented: ?Darwin?s theory of [evolution] has always
been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and
probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is
made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the
history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly
true.?

Why not? The Bulletin went on to say that Darwin ?was
embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn?t
look the way he predicted it would . . . the geologic
record did not then and still does not yield a finely
graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.? In
fact now, after more than a century of collecting
fossils, ?we have even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin?s time,? explained
the Bulletin. Why is this the case? Because the more
abundant fossil evidence available today shows that
some of the examples that were once used to support
evolution now are seen not to do so at all.
This failure of the fossil evidence to support
gradual evolution has disturbed many evolutionists. In
The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke
of ?the general failure of the record to display
gradual transitions from one major group to another.?
He said: ?The known fossil record is not, and never
has been, in accord with [slow evolution].? Niles
Eldredge also admitted: ?The pattern that we were told
to find for the last 120 years does not exist.?

Nothing is ever only one way in nature. There IS slow evolution.
There are also the changing conditions that cause leaps in evolution.

[/quote]

neither that can be duplicated in a lab.

[quote]There are also mass extinctions (five of them), which makes it
possible for those who have developed claws for digging, can now use
them for climbing trees.
And so on.

[/quote]

speculation.. not proven, nor can it be falsified.

[quote]
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com[/quote]

jabriol · Guest

"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:XKS%a.5586$CP4.2225317001@twister2.starband.net...
[quote]hmm. I don>t see jabriol>s reply, except as quoted here

[/quote]
Snip Oldridge lapse into senility...

[quote]

no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.

I certainly can>t read your mind. However, their views are misrepresented.
Each of these scientists fully accepts the Theory of Evolution.
[/quote]

I never said that they have abandoned the theory...

think of it as two surgeons whom may disagree on a procedure....
they do not stop practicing medicine... at this point they might employ a
third surgeon
to settle the disagreement or try another better procedure they can agree on

[quote]

We realize that it was not your intent to properly represent his views.
In fact, it was your intent to sin. And since this intent apparently
remains intact, you are an unrepentant sinner. The sin in question,
false witness, is a very deadly one and God has appointed a final place
for people who retain this intent and who will not repent of it:

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.

But then, given your record, this is probably your goal in life...

--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667

Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
[/quote]

I have no clue of what oldridge is talking about..

[quote]
[/quote]

davers_dfd · Guest

The mistress of insanity wrote:

~~:-(
~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere created
~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites, trees,
~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....

And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)

You.

davers
--
INSANITY: It is difficult to comprehend how insane some people can be.
Especially when you are insane!

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/insanity.html

.. * | * .. · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f400b6e$0$262$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: I never said that they have abandoned the theory.
: : think of it as two surgeons whom may disagree on a procedure....
: they do not stop practicing medicine... at this point they might employ a
: third surgeon
: to settle the disagreement or try another better procedure they can agree
on
==============
Such as planet earth being "seeded" from a galaxy far, far away......
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================

.. * | * .. · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f40085c$0$243$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
: > Nothing is ever only one way in nature. There IS slow evolution.
: > There are also the changing conditions that cause leaps in evolution.
: >
:
:
: neither that can be duplicated in a lab.

* Nor can CREATION or seeding of planet earth be duplicated in a lab.
:
: > There are also mass extinctions (five of them), which makes it
: > possible for those who have developed claws for digging, can now use
: > them for climbing trees.
: > And so on.

: speculation.. not proven, nor can it be falsified.

* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere created
everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites, trees,
AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....

--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================

davers_dfd · Guest

In article <WUZ%a.1484$7b2.916@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>, no-door-
knockers@THIS.edu says...
~~:-(
~~:-("davers_dfd" , who turned to drink when he realized what his god
~~:-(did<davers_dfd@netzero.net> wrote in message
~~:-(news:MPG.19aa11a14d4fc15989725@news.west.cox.net...
~~:-(:
~~:-(: ~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere
~~:-(created
~~:-(: ~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites,
~~:-(trees,
~~:-(: ~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
~~:-(:
~~:-(: The master of alcoholism wrote:
~~:-(: And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)
~~:-(--------------------------------------------
~~:-(** So your god finds HUMOR in disease, suffering and death???? No wonder
~~:-(you drank yourself into a stupor. :o)
~~:-(--

No my pudgy lil fiend, I drank myself into a stupor because I did not
want to face the consequences of my choice to violate Jehovah>s laws. I
stopped drinking, due to recognizing that that action further alienated
me from Jehovah. I may be slow, but I am thorough...;0)

davers
--
If Jehovah, His organization, or myself take exception
to some aspect of my life or personality...
I have a personal challenge.

If you take exception to some aspect of my life or
personality...
You have a personal problem.

Dave M Worthey with appreciation to JG.

.. * | * .. · Guest

"davers_dfd" , who turned to drink when he realized what his god
did<davers_dfd@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.19aa11a14d4fc15989725@news.west.cox.net...
:
: ~~:-(* Speculation, never proven... that some spirit out of nowhere
created
: ~~:-(everything from nothing.... including cancer, plants, parasites,
trees,
: ~~:-(AIDS, arthritis, ferns, genetic defects, flies.....
:
: The master of alcoholism wrote:
: And proof that he has a sense of humor...;0)
--------------------------------------------
** So your god finds HUMOR in disease, suffering and death???? No wonder
you drank yourself into a stupor. :o)
--
Justin Kace......
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal ~ (1623-1662)
==========================================

JTEM · Guest

"jabriol" <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote

[quote]Millions of bones and other evidence of past life
have been unearthed by scientists, and these are
called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in
all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind
of living thing evolving into another kind.
[/quote]
You mean, we>d have something like "millions of bones
and other evidence of past life" as evidence?

JTEM · Guest

"jabriol" <jabriol@hotmail.com> wrote

[quote]"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote
That is a quote out-of-context by David Raup. You are
misrepresenting his views, by making it seem as if he
doesn>t accept biological evolution. Please retract your
misrepresentation or provide additional content showing
that you are properly representing his views.

no, that is your intepretation, not my intent.
[/quote]
"I don>t mean to keep lying. It>s an accident."


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Anthropology - Paleo Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2