Evolution 101- Part 20: Natural, Natural, Natural, and the Diamond Squid

Remember, normal text is copied from Evolution 101 by the Understanding Evolution team! (Milwaukee’s #1 News Team) http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

BOLD font is me, Rent A Friend 2000, being Bold.
The big issues

darwins notebook
A page from Darwin’s notebook. [Editor’s Note: Believe it or not, this is in English. And that may be the worst drawing of a giraffe I have ever seen.]

All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors.

Give them a break. They haven’t read my critique yet. Or anything Answers in Genesis has put out in the past thirty years. But I hope YOU have seen how NONE of the available evidence supports the evolutionary theory, and in fact how it opposes it at every turn.

Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions.

It’s funny how they used the word “Biologists” to mean, “evolutionists.” Did these guys not have a dictionary? Or do they live in such a tiny evolutionary bubble that they have never heard of Michael Behe, or Dr Dwane Gish, or all of the scientists on this list who are arguing AGAINST their conclusions:

http://creation.com/creation-scientists#presentsci   and this one:   http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists’ work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?

Have I answered this question already? I think I have.

All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world.

Can you feel how much they REALLY want to say “Scientists do not accept any supernatural ANYTHING!”? They want it so bad they can taste it. They used the word NATURAL three times in one sentence. Who talks like that? But to show you they aren’t alone, here’s Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University: ‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic’ correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

So, there is a conclusion which SCIENCE is NOT ALLOWED to reach, even if ALL Of the evidence supports it, namely, God. But surely it’s because SCIENCE has proven this worldview, right? Think again:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Remind me again, what is the difference between observational science and blind religious faith? Because I suspect it might be different than the definition of “Observational Science.” A blind faith is a godless universe is still a faith, and not a reasonable faith.

Evolutionary biology is no exception.

Except for the fact that it violates the laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis, and any information sciences, and the fact that it is not based on any observable evidence. Otherwise, yeah, it’s all natural, natural and natural. I mean, “science.”

Darwin’s basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.

Did I miss it? Because I read their whole web page here and I saw NO evidence from the NATURAL world. I did see hypothetical examples, guesswork, speculation, and conclusions which could not possibly be derived from the observations. I would suggest that, if there was evidence which supported it, these guys should have listed some on this web site. But that’s just me. I don’t want to tell them how to do their jobs.

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

  1. Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
  2. Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
  3. How does evolution produce new and complex features?
  4. Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

Or 5. not at all?


The pace of evolution: Does evolution occur in rapid bursts or gradually?

This question is difficult to answer because we can’t replay the past with a stopwatch in hand. However, we can try to figure out what patterns we’d expect to observe in the fossil record if evolution did happen in bursts, or if evolution happened gradually. Then we can check these predictions against what we observe.

It’s almost cute how they keep trying to sound like they’re doing real science. They know scientists make observations and predictions and then check with experiments. But they are starting with the evolutionary bias, THEN making predictions, THEN finding the data to wedge into their model NO MATTER WHAT the data actually is (See Stasis). If this was real science, they’d make observations, then ask questions, then form a hypothesis, then create experiments to test those guesses, then compare the results and try it again a few times just to be sure. Can you see how that’s different?

Note that in the first sentence they admit they CANNOT observe the past, which is what this question is about. Then in the last sentence they claim to check their “Predictions” (About the past?) with their observations (of the past?). I may have A.D.D., but even I can see the bait and switch going on here.

What should we observe in the fossil record if evolution is slow and steady?
If evolution is slow and steady, we’d expect to see the entire transition, from ancestor to descendant, displayed as transitional forms over a long period of time in the fossil record.fossil toon

In the above example, the preservation of many transitional forms, through layers representing a length of time, gives a complete record of slow and steady evolution.

OK, seriously, what is this supposed to be? The evolution of the diamond squid?

In fact, we see many examples of transitional forms in the fossil record.

This is a bold faced lie, as is revealed by their using CARTOONS to show the transitions. If those transitions existed, they would have pictures of those fossils in here, but they keep reverting to cartoons. And you should see the cartoons when they are color coded to indicate which of those bones they actually have and which are speculation. It’s… well it should be illegal. There are NO KNOWN TRANSITIONAL FORMS alive or in fossils. But don’t take MY word for it: “It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded…Ironically we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time……by this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” *David Raup, Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Chicago Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979”

“…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Personal letter from * Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland

What’s amazing about the sequence below is, the highlighted parts are some of the parts that were NOT FOUND.  The first creature (Pakicetus) was most of a skull and some teeth. The arm/hand of the second in this lineup (Ambulocetus) was not found until after this cartoon lineage was proposed and made popular, and then that one was removed from this lineage BY THE GUY WHO PROPOSED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE because it did NOT support this evolutionary sequence. You can watch him discuss it here: http://youtu.be/Cf9CTrvEeE0?t=14m19s Apparently these guys didn’t do their homework, because they still have that thing in this lineage, based on parts which were fabricated to fit the proposed evolutionary sequence. They also don’t tell you that the second animal was found 400 feet HIGHER in the fossil record than the first one. How does THAT fit into their slow gradual depositing of rocks and fossils? Did this one dig its way up 400 feet after it had been dead for a few million years? Because that sounds unlikely.

The next animal up didn’t have a tail when they found it, making its whale-like tail another piece of artistic license (aka: Fiction). What evidence lead them to add a whale tail? None. It was added to support the evolutionary sequence which had already been decided on.

When you see enough of these, it’s hard not to start thinking of it as an intentional scam. Some of these guys would reconstruct a whole city block from two bricks and a shoe lace. But I digress.

For example, to the right we show just a few steps in the evolution of whales from land-dwelling mammals, highlighting the transition of the walking forelimb to the flipper.

Transitional forms in whale evolution

To recap- the first animal at bottom left was reconstructed from parts of a skull, the next was found with no front limbs, and the one behind that with no tail. Do you see why I object to this cartoon? Do you see why they use this cartoon and not pictures of the actual fossils? And if you consider that the first animal is the size of a Labrador Retriever and the last bigger than a city bus, the illustration above begins to feel even more misleading, as well it should. Above the authors of the Evo 101 site said this: “Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions.” I think I can make this statement true with just some slight modifications: “The facts are not arguing for these conclusions.” There. Now that’s REAL science.

Join me next week for part 20.



About rentafriend2000
Rocking my 40's with a heart full of love and muffins, science and technology. Jesus loves me and wants me to totally rock! And I am here to help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics made Friendly

Reluctantly Aging

One man’s futile struggle against inevitability

A Bit of Orange

Biblical Apologetics Made Friendly

RaF Ministries News

What's new at Rent-A-Friend Ministries

Bible Science Forum

Creation Evolution Cosmology

Superhero etc.


Creation Science 4 Kids

creation science worded for all of us

christian ammunition

He that dasheth in pieces is come up before thy face: keep the munition...fortify thy power mightily--NAHUM 2:1

Surprised by Logic

Logic for the ordinary Joe and Jane


WordPress.com is the best place for your personal blog or business site.

Rent-A-Friend 2000's Biblical Thinking and Good Times!

Part of the Creation Soapbox Apologetics Ministry

%d bloggers like this: