Search This Blog

Thursday, January 06, 2011

Why does the world believe the Darwinist fossil stories? They do not know the truth!

A copied post, always a favorite!  So let me remind you that I have written much on the fossil rocks and after reading the comments threads I had better do one big almighty massive Flood post.   Some preliminary discussions for those new to the game after the article...

BioLogos's Fossil Record Page Conspicuously Missing the Cambrian Explosion

The BioLogos website has a static page titled "What does the fossil record show?," which would naturally lead one to expect that if you read the page, then you'll learn what the fossil record shows. What's odd about the page is that the page makes no mention whatsoever of the Cambrian explosion. This is despite the fact that Robert L. Carroll calls the Cambrian explosion "[t]he most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution":
The most conspicuous event in metazoan evolution was the dramatic origin of major new structures and body plans documented by the Cambrian explosion. Until 530 million years ago, multicellular animals consisted primarily of simple, soft-bodied forms, most of which have been identified from the fossil record as cnidarians and sponges. Then, within less than 10 million years, almost all of the advanced phyla appeared, including echinoderms, chordates, annelids, brachiopods, molluscs and a host of arthropods. The extreme speed of anatomical change and adaptive radiation during this brief time period requires explanations that go beyond those proposed for the evolution of species within the modern biota. (Robert L. Carroll, "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 15(1):27-32 (2000) (internal citations removed).)
In fact, BioLogos's fossil record page doesn't make any mention of the pattern of explosions of new life-forms common throughout the history of life. This is despite the fact that, as one zoology textbook states, both lower and higher taxa tend to appear abruptly, making this one of the more prevalent features of the fossil record:
Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, 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. (C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, p. 866 (1988, 8th ed.).)
So what exactly does the fossil record show? It certainly shows a number of explosions, and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic of them all. But somehow this entire event--and this entire pattern--is left out of the BioLogos page explaining what the fossil record shows. Instead BioLogos focuses on a few isolated (and questionable) examples of gradual change--exceptions to the standard rule of abrupt appearance.
Why the omissions? Perhaps it's because, as a 2003 paper in International Journal of Developmental Biology explains, the Cambrian explosion poses a challenge to unguided neo-Darwinian evolution:
the major evolutionary transitions in animal evolution still remain to be causally explained. ... As it stands, microevolution does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the extraordinary burst of novelty during the Cambrian Explosion. (Jaume Baguña and Jordi Garcia-Fernández, "Evo-Devo: the Long and Winding Road," International Journal of Developmental Biology, Vol. 47:705-713 (2003) (internal citations removed).)
Yet this most conspicuous event in the history of animal life is conspicuously missing from BioLogos's description of "what does the fossil record show." 
Postscript: I have received some extremely positive feedback on these posts responding to BioLogos (see Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). I want to make it clear, however, that nothing in these posts has been intended to suggest or imply that anybody has acted dishonestly. These posts are simply a response and correction to what I view as inaccuracies and deficiencies in the BioLogos fossil record page.

May 15, 2010
 
 
 
 
Jan 03, 2011


Jul 10, 2010

 

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Are any of the polystrate fossils you mention here actually situated in such a way that there is a difference of millions of years between the top layer and the bottom layer that the polystrate fossil spans as you previously claimed?

If so, please provide the specific example(s).

If not, then all you've got is an indication of a rapid burial, and that by itself is not proof of a young Earth or a global flood as it's perfectly compatible with conventional geology and an old Earth.

Again, Radar: nobody is arguing that rapid burials don't happen in an old Earth scenario.

Anonymous said...

And of course you're still short of what you claimed you would provide: a fossil out of place in the geologic column.

Are you still looking for one, or are you now just trying to evade the issue, like you have with so many others?

Anonymous said...

[Comment disappeared, so I will now chop it into itty-bitty little pieces - if they all survive, it will be this and the following 3 comments.]

As for Casey Luskin's pasted post, why would he waste his time on such a pointless article, and why would Radar waste time even pasting it?

Anonymous said...

(cont'd - part 2)

The article that omitted the Cambrian explosion is one of a series of answers to specific questions, not a comprehensive rundown of the fossil record. Since the site as a whole appears to be arguing for theistic evolution, it summarizes what the fossil record shows that supports evolution to those that may be unaware of such facts.

Anonymous said...

(cont'd - part 3)

If it were intended to be a comprehensive presentation of the fossil record, by all means, Luskin would have a point. Since it isn't, he doesn't.

Anonymous said...

(cont'd - part 4)

Especially since, sitting right in the sidebar of the article he critiques, there is a link that is clearly labeled The Cambrian Explosion, where that issue is discussed.

Jon Woolf said...

Nice summary, Anonymous.

I might add that since the last time the subject came up here, I've learned of a way that 'polystrate' tree fossils could form under conventional geologic theory, even including several layers of rock. It would require some moderately rare circumstances, but it's certainly possible.

Anonymous whatsit said...

So... no sign of a fossil out of place in the geologic column, no sign of a polystrate fossil that actually spans layers of millions of years...

plus that aborted series on dating methods...

plus no explanation of the sequential order of fossils in the fossil record...

and looking back over this blog, Radar's list of failures to answer questions and aborted promises to demonstrate this and that just goes on and on. And all he tries to cover it up with is poor science, logical fallacies, strawman arguments, evasions to different subjects etc.

YEC = toast.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the Links Radar. Especially this one.

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/02/polystrate-fossils-cant-be-found.html

Always nice to see your posts ripped to shreds by Jon and creeper in the comments section. Your Polystrate post was one big fail back then, and this one is no different.

That said, like the others above, I just don't understand why you continue to contend that stuff like the evidence for rapid burial and fossilization of soft bodied organisms as some kind of refutation of an old earth scenario. Other than YECs, can you tell us of anyone that contends that the examples above could not have occurred if the earth is billions of years old? I mean, who are you arguing with here anyway? Other than yet another elaborately constructed strawman.

- Canucklehead.

radar said...

I am at work, but the first polystrate covers "millions of years" by Uniformitarian thinking. You go ahead and growl, I got a nice bone for you coming.

Anonymous said...

"I am at work, but the first polystrate covers "millions of years" by Uniformitarian thinking."

If it does, the article accompanying it fails to mention that. What's your source?

"You go ahead and growl, I got a nice bone for you coming."

Yeah, we've heard that one before. Promises promises, followed by fallacies and untruths.

Jon Woolf said...

Oh, one more thing, in the same line as Canucklehead's comment just above. Newbie readers here should make a special note of this past post Radar linked:

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/02/lets-try-this-again-catastrophism-and.html

because it's the very first post of his that I ever read and responded to. Quite fun to revisit it, in fact ... and to ponder that almost a year later, Radar has learned nothing from or about me. He never even tried to address my Grand Canyon essay, from which he swiped those two pictures and which I linked to several times over the next week or three.

radar said...

Nothing to be learned from Jon Woolf except how Darwinists try to evade the primary questions undergirding their apalling belief system.

Mt. St. Helens should have taught you something, Jon. But since it didn't I am reconsidering how to make this blog better by having a weekend teaching post. When I teach, I produce a syllabus and set out a lesson schedule and primary topics. But on this blog I just kind of let things wander. Time to rethink and start with perhaps the Flood itself?

Anonymous said...

"Nothing to be learned from Jon Woolf except how Darwinists try to evade the primary questions undergirding their apalling belief system."

That patronizing and belittling tone is most unbecoming, Radar.

Jon Woolf said...

"Nothing to be learned from Jon Woolf"

Nothing, Gracie?

Nothing at all?

"Mt. St. Helens should have taught you something, Jon."

Oh, it did. Visiting Mount St. Helens taught me many things. It's you who failed to learn from it, Radar.

Captain Stubing said...

"Nothing to be learned from Jon Woolf except how Darwinists try to evade the primary questions undergirding their apalling belief system."

My, how Radar can make himself look so bad using such few words...

Radar, why do you so desperately avoid an open discussion with Jon Woolf? The man is obviously in command of a great number of facts and is willing to discuss them with you. What are you afraid of?

Radar, why do you just about always misrepresent scientific theories that you disagree with? Is it because you don't understand them, or is it because you are afraid that if they are true, that this will somehow affect your religious faith?

Radar, what do you think Jon Woolf's belief system is, and what do you find appalling about it?

Anonymous said...

"My, how Radar can make himself look so bad using such few words..."

Depending on how one reads the words, Radar may well be right. It's obvious that one can learn a great deal from Jon Woolf, since he has spent years doing research and is willing to share it, but perhaps Radar simply means that he, Radar, can learn nothing from Jon Woolf. Which as it happens is true, and has nothing to do with Jon Woolf.

One needs only to look back at the comment thread on the post preceding this one to see how difficult Radar finds information input if it isn't guaranteed to support his predetermined views. Given direct instructions as to where the information can be found, Radar has shown himself incapable of clicking on a few links and reading even a few pages. Instead he simply lied and pretended he was not directed toward any information - and then even tried to claim victory in the argument!

And witness how seemingly impossible it is for Radar to comprehend that evidence of a rapid burial here or there does not amount to evidence for a Global Flood.

Question for Jon Woolf, since you have been involved in plenty of discussions with creationists: are there any creationists out there who can intelligently defend their positions? Radar apparently isn't up to the task, and we recently saw that creation.com and Jonathan Sarfati see fit to spread lies as well. Which creationists, if any, would you consider to not have left their integrity behind?

Jon Woolf said...

"Question for Jon Woolf, since you have been involved in plenty of discussions with creationists: are there any creationists out there who can intelligently defend their positions? ... Which creationists, if any, would you consider to not have left their integrity behind?"

Well, these are two different questions, with different answers.

On the first question: I don't know of any young-earth creationists who can intelligently defend their positions. Old-earth creationists do much better, as long as they stick to some form of theistic evolution -- ie, the belief that God Created using evolution. Those who try to argue that God Created instead of evolution inevitably fail, just as Radar does, and for the same reason: all his anti-evolution arguments are flawed.

I'd go so far as to say that it isn't creationism that screws them up, as much as it is "anti-evolutionism." Creationists who resist the siren song of anti-evolutionism generally manage to be pretty rational in their beliefs. It's the anti-evolutionists (whether they're creationists or not) who wind up as the butt of jokes, because they always wind up using the same crummy anti-evolution arguments, and those arguments stink just as bad when they're used to defend Hoyle's steady-state panspermia nonsense as when they're used to defend YEC.

On the second question: I do know one YEC who never left his integrity behind ... but he made a point of never arguing about his young-Earth beliefs. He didn't deny that right now the scientific evidence is all in favor of an old Earth. He simply believed that we were missing an element, and that when we found it, it would be the key to reconciling YEC with the evidence. That's a position I can respect, even if I don't agree with it.

Anonymous said...

Since you've galloped off on another huge copypasta job, Radar, can we consider this question abandoned as well?

"I am at work, but the first polystrate covers "millions of years" by Uniformitarian thinking."

If it does, the article accompanying it fails to mention that. What's your source?


I've googled around the Cookville/Cookeville, Tennessee fossils and consistently only find mention that they are evidence of rapid burial, not that the layers at the top and bottom of the fossil are dated millions of years apart. So this is hardly a refutation of an old Earth.

Rapid burials are consistent with both a young Earth and an old Earth. Other things are not, and those consistently indicate an old Earth.