Joined: Oct. 2015
|Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,21:09)|
|Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,20:23)|
| Science has hundreds of well documented transitional sequences in the fossil record, far more than enough to confirm macroevolution.|
I don't think so.
“In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
The following quote is part of a personal letter from Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland:
"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. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).
More, Louis T. [late Professor of Physics, University of Cincinnati, USA], "The Dogma of Evolution," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 1925, Second Printing, p.160.
"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."
[QUOTE][(snip the Creationist IDiot quotes, the blatant quote-mining of Gould, the same stupid YEC PRATT claims about dino soft tissue and C-14 dating)/QUOTE]
If soft tissue and non permineralized fossils, beside carbon C14 dating is not evidence for young fossils, then i don't know what is.....
Beside this :
The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.
The point which Professor Behe makes for vision applies equally to macroevolution as a whole. The relevant steps in macroevolutionary processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of macroevolution must include a molecular explanation.
If, for some reason, certain macroevolutionary transitions appear to be highly improbable from a chemical standpoint, then that in itself is a good reason to be skeptical of the view that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an all-inclusive theory of biology.
(Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269).
Macroevolution has also been defined by Professor Jerry Coyne as “large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type”
Evolutionary change occurs on different scales: ‘microevolution’ is generally equated with events at or below the species level whereas ‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species.
In nature, evolution occurs at the molecular level of specific, individual mutations, so it is there we must look to evaluate possible evolutionary paths. Studies with less detail can say very little on the topic.
Behe, Darwins Black Box, pg.38:
Other ages have been unable to answer many questions that interested them. Furthermore, because we can't yet evaluate the question of eye evolution or beetle evolution does not mean we can't evaluate Darwinism's claims for any biological structure. When we descend from the level of a whole animal (such as a beetle) or whole organ (such as an eye) to the molecular level, then in many cases we can make a judgment on evolution because all of the parts of many discrete molecular systems are known.