Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Evolution Charts - Off Course

One of the modern evolutionists’ biggest problems is the lack of transitional forms found in the fossil records. The so-called “gaps” in the fossil records that were noted over one hundred years ago have not been filled. A transitional form is an animal that is obviously becoming another kind of animal; a horse becoming a giraffe, perhaps, or a coral becoming a crab. These kinds of fossils are not being found, although desperately sought worldwide. There are a few animals that have been proposed to be transitional by evolutionists that are yet in doubt. Up to this point in time, not one transitional form has been proven to actually be so by any scientist.

There will be scientists who claim that there are, indeed, transitional forms found in the fossil record and will lay out a list of mostly aquatic animals that are supposed to be partly fish, partly sharks or partly fish, partly amphibians. The part-fish, upon examination, have proven to be entirely fish. Fish have small pelvic bones that are embedded in muscle and not connected to the backbone unlike tetrapod amphibians, which have large pelvises that are firmly connected to the vertebral column. Without this anatomy, the amphibian could not walk. The morphological differences in this gap are obvious and profound. There may be fossil fish that resemble amphibians, but they do not exhibit the proper anatomy. It is also difficult to prove that the fossils resembling sharks and rays are not simply species of sharks and rays no longer in existence.

What are found in the fossil records are many varieties of animals and plants that appear for the first time as fully functioning trilobites or sponges or dragonflies or dinosaurs with no evidence of a previous transitional form. Many of these animals are extinct, but that does not imply it is because they developed into a different animal. What did the Dodo bird develop into, for instance? (Other than dinner!)

Careful studies of the sedimentary layers of the earth point to layering caused by flood. The fossil layers are generally distributed as one would expect in a flood, the bottom dwelling sea life at the bottom, the fish at another level, shore-dwellers at another layer and the largest land animals near the top. (Particularly the ones capable of recognizing danger and able to run to higher ground). Certainly the specific gravity of some of the remains comes into play in the deposits and there are fossils in which animals are “caught” in an onslaught while eating another animal or giving birth! The sedimentary layers often exhibit ripples or signs of “turbidity current deposits” or sediments resulting from flood conditions. The layers are usually quite defined, with no signs of wear between them. Although Uniformitarianism calls for gradual layering, in the real world there are consistently sharp and obvious contrasts between layers. This would be the expected result with layering that would result from a worldwide flood.

Perhaps you remember the famous “Horse Evolution” chart from school. There was a nice little transition from “Eohippus” (Hyracotherium) all the way up to Equus. The little horses became big horses over millions of years. The Horse Series was a shining example for Darwinists of transitional forms, as a small animal became a horse. The horse series was constructed from fossils found in India, South America, North America and Europe, in a series from the smallest to the largest. (Modern horses range from 17" to 80" in size) (Thanks to the Biology Textbook Fraud website.) We now know that the various forms of horses have been found in layers with other forms. Eohippus has often been found in the same strata with Equus! Beyond that, there was no progression shown between the different animals. In fact, the rib numbers first decrease, then increase suddenly, and then decrease again. Hyracotherium had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, Pliohippus had 19, and Equus has 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also changes from six to eight and then back to six. Another problem is that while the “transitory types” are found in great numbers, there are no specimens in between them in size or character. Each of these animals seems to be a separate type and not part of an evolutionary chain at all. One could construct a series portraying the evolution of dogs from a Mexican Hairless up to a Great Dane and make it seem more likely than the horse series.

Carl Wieland, in "Fuzzy feathers and walking whales?" uncovers the paucity of evidence for so-called transitional forms.

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

“…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.” Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.

"...the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear—and apparently—unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. " Dr. Henry Morris.

Reminder link: Concerning the Ark.

14 comments:

cranky old fart said...

Well, given your Ark theory, don't you actually believe in "super evolution"?

I mean, of all the "kinds" (however tortured you want to define them) on that 450' boat, there are now many, many more "kinds", species, varieties, etc. today. How did all this come to be on your young earth? Super evolution?

radar said...

As John Woodmorappe explained (linked in the reminder post about the Ark) only about 16,000 animals are required.

Let us use dogs as an example, specifically, the dog "kind". The AKC recognizes over 150 breeds of dogs. There are all sorts of dingoes and wolves, etc. in the wild but all of these are just variations of on kind that could have held the gene pool within a pair of animals on the Ark. The wild dogs on the ark, through microevolution and loss of genetic code, are now expressed in fully hundred of varieties of animal now.

Remember that the variety of recognized breed now have almost all been developed within the last 150 years. Microevolution (variation within a kind) does not take long under the right conditions.

cranky old fart said...

You bring me breeds of dogs? Yes they are related to wolves, and are of relatively "recent" origin.

http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs
/evolution/evolution.html

http://www.dog-names.org.uk
/history-evolution-dogs.htm

New mice breeds are also easy to create. But let's talk species.

There are, very roughly, 2-100 million species of animals on the earth. A species being where two creatures can produce viable offspring. (Which leaves out asexual reproduction). To create a new species takes DNA change. New species don't "microevolve" over night.

Let's speak of say, elephants. There are about 160 species, species, not breeds, of probiscideans, of which 3 are still living. Were they all on the ark?

And of course, out the window of the ark they were looking at starlight. Light that had been traveling millions of light-years to be seen, though they were created just a short time before that ark was built. Odd.

radar said...

"Species" is an arbitrary term used to facilitate the sorting of living things. However, it is not necessary for the Ark to have had every species, simply the parent "kind." I took the phrase from Genesis and its common sense meaning is simply that each "kind" breeds only with others of its kind and no others, and reproduce the same kind.

Those evolution sites betray something common to evolutionists, which is fantasy. Like this quote:
"The third group, the canines (KAY nines), includes the extinct dire wolf and all living species of canines. This group occurred only in North America until about 7 million years ago, when some species crossed a land bridge to Asia."

This entire paragraph above is complete speculation. There is no one that can prove any of that. Yet such Darwinist speculation is posted as fact and fed to school kids around the world. Blech!



According to Genesis, all things were created by kinds. Rather than 160 pairs of assorted elephant types, only one part of the elephant kind is necessary. Once the Ark was landed, the elephant kind would go forth, breed and spread.

Most of the species of elephants that have been identified were extinct types that perished in the Flood. Noah took whatever elephant kind that was required to save the genetic code for elephants to carry the breed on. It is entirely possible that every species of extinct elephant could have been extracted from the genetic code of the Ark pair. But in the post-flood era only a few varieties of the elephant kind have flourished.

I am reluctant to post much on starlight yet, since my hope was to present a step-by-step basis for Creation Science. Right now I am still fooling around with rock layers and fossils.

cranky old fart said...

Yes, that all makes sense if new speices were so easily "extracted" from earlier species.

To borrow from your "transitionals" argument elsewhere, we should be literally tripping over a continuing stream of new species by this super evolution!

radar said...

I don't know what "super evolution" is, but microevolution is variation within kinds and of course the dog is a great example. Cranky, I will quote you:

"To borrow from your "transitionals" argument elsewhere, we should be literally tripping over a continuing stream of new species..."

"There are, very roughly, 2-100 million species of animals on the earth."

You answered yourself! Lots of speciation has occurred since the Ark. It involves the loss of DNA information, sometimes to the point that the new species cannot breed with the originating species anymore. This is evolution in reverse, however.

cranky old fart said...

Yes, there are millions of species. This makes sense over hundreds of millions of years. Your speciation has occurred over a mere 6,000 years.

From 16,000 animals (8,000 species?) to millions of species in just 6,000 years. At that rate we should have at least another 200 species of elephants by now, not to mention humans....and more every decade.

cranky old fart said...

Yes, there are millions of species. This makes sense over hundreds of millions of years. Your speciation has occurred over a mere 6,000 years.

From 16,000 animals (8,000 species?) to millions of species in just 6,000 years. At that rate we should have at least another 200 species of elephants by now, not to mention humans....and more every decade.

radar said...

Whereas I would say that speciation happened as the animals spread themselves out across the vast globe and as they separated into pockets of individual populations microevolution caused speciation by environment and chance so that various species of the same kinds took place. This accounts for the species available today. Extinct species would not likely reappear since the earth's basic habitats have changed since the Flood.

radar said...

Also, the Ark was a repository for vertebrate land-dwelling animals only. Insects, microorganisms and water-dwellers did not need to be carried on the Ark and these make up the vast majority of these species to which you refer.

cranky old fart said...

So now it's a "vast globe"? Didn't seem that way as Noah traveled around the globe (what a phenomenal navigator, sailor, explorer, animal trainer, etc. that man was!) to collect animals from Australia, Greenland, the Americas, Asia, etc. Then when he returned them to all those places, never losing a one!

By the way, you mean all those insects somehow survived underwater for the duration of the flood? Just amazing!

radar said...

Noah didn't travel anywhere before the flood, the animals came to him. It is likely there was one continent at that time and that the current continent splitoffs occurred during and after the Flood itself, which would be very dynamic. Uniformitarians like to believe that the continents, which look as if they would fit together like a puzzle, have drifted apart over millions of years. Creationists believe that the continental separation occurred as a result of the Flood and Flood aftermath.

Genesis 7:9 "two by two they went into the ark to Noah, male and female, as God had commanded Noah."

As previously posted, insects would be capable of clinging to small floating "rafts" of vegetation and so on during the flood and so there was no need to make provision for them on the Ark. Furthermore, in the Bible account there is no charge nor necessity to preserve each insect or microbe or water-dwelling animal, simply the vertebrates as mentioned earlier.

cranky old fart said...

I give up. Logic and common sense are useless against a "mind" driven to believe in fairy tales.

The only upside is that such nonesnese will keep more people from Christianity than it will suck in.

Have a nice life.

radar said...

Gee, Cranky, I thought my answers were reasoned and thoughtful. You want fairy tales? How about the horse evolution chart, or Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man, or Neanderthal for that matter (more on that later)? Darwinism consists entirely of suppositions because no one has ever been able to show any occurences of macroevolution. Never. Darwinists either say it happens too fast to show up in the fossil record but too slow to be observed today. So the progression from microbe to man is, at every step, a fairy tale backed by no proof at all, but only speculation.

Creationism is different in a very important way and soon I will post on just why that is but for now.....I want to thank you for your contributions and I will be sorry to see you leave if that is what you will do...