Originally posted by Maslo
Well, show me one example of such "debunked fallacy". We will see if its really valid, or debunked pseudoscience. Let the logic and facts speak, not
personal beliefs and opinions.
I have no problem admitting that evolution theory is wrong, if I was shown ONE undeniable scientific evidence that rebutts it. All I have seen up to
now turned out to be just another false pseudoscience example. And even if evolution was somehow proved wrong, you still have to prove ID, or you know
nothing and cannot claim its true. So, who is blind?
(source: "Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe?")
What Does the Fossil Record Show?
Darwin staked the credibility of his theory on discoveries he was sure would be found in the fossil record. After a century and a half of exploration
and discoveries, does that record support his theory or contradict it?
Can the theory of evolution be proven? After all, it is called the theory of evolution in acknowledgment of the fact that it is not a confirmed
Where can we find evidence supporting evolution as an explanation for the teeming variety of life on earth?
Since evolutionists claim that the transition from one species to a new one takes place in tiny, incremental changes over millions of years, they
acknowledge that we cannot observe the process taking place today. Our lifespans simply are too short to directly observe such a change. Instead, they
say, we have to look at the past—the fossil record that shows the many life-forms that have existed over earth's history—to find transitions from
one species to another.
Darwin's greatest challenge
When Charles Darwin proposed his theory in the mid-19th century, he was confident that fossil discoveries would provide clear and convincing evidence
that his conjectures were correct. His theory predicted that countless transitional forms must have existed, all gradually blending almost
imperceptibly from one tiny step to the next, as species progressively evolved to higher, better-adapted forms.
Indeed that would have to be the case. Well in excess of a million species are alive today. For all those to have evolved from common ancestors, we
should be able to find millions, if not hundreds of millions, of intermediate forms gradually evolving into other species.
It was not only fossils of transitional species between apes and human beings that would have to be discovered to prove Darwin's theory. The gaps
were enormous. Science writer Richard Milton notes that the missing links "included every part of the animal kingdom: from whelks to whales and from
bacteria to bactrian camels. Darwin and his successors envisaged a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas,
progressing through fishes, to amphibians—living partly in the sea and partly on land—and hence on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the
primates, including humans" (Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 253).
However, even Darwin himself struggled with the fact that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. "Why," he asked, "if species have
descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? . . . Why do we not find them imbedded in
countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (The Origin of Species, 1859, Masterpieces of Science edition, 1958, pp. 136-137).
"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous," he wrote. "Why then is not every geological
formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this,
perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory" (Darwin, pp. 260-261).
Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record failed to support his conclusions. But, since he thought his theory obviously was the correct explanation
for the earth's many and varied forms of life, he and others thought it only a matter of time before fossilized missing links would be found to fill
in the many gaps. His answer for the lack of fossil evidence to support his theory was that scientists hadn't looked long enough and hadn't looked
in the right places. Eventually they would find the predicted fossil remains that would prove his view. "The explanation lies, I believe, in the
extreme imperfection of the geological record," he wrote (p. 261).
He was convinced that later explorations and discoveries would fill in the abundant gaps where the transitional species on which his theory was based
were missing. But now, a century and a half later, after literally hundreds of thousands of fossil plants and animals have been discovered and
cataloged and with few corners of the globe unexplored, what does the fossil record show?
What the record reveals
David Raup is a firm believer in evolution and a respected paleontologist (a scientist who studies fossils) at the University of Chicago and the Field
Museum. However, he admits that the fossil record has been misinterpreted if not outright mischaracterized, stating: "A large number of well-trained
scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it
is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also,
there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these
have not been found— yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks" (Science, Vol. 213, July 1981, p. 289,
Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of
New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support the traditional
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," he writes. "It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields
zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change—over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for
all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history.
"When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not
evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist
looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory, 1995, p. 95, emphasis
After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the "missing links" Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are
The late Harvard University paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould is perhaps today's best-known popular writer on evolution. An ardent evolutionist, he
collaborated with Professor Eldredge in proposing alternatives to the traditional view of Darwinism. Like Eldredge, he recognized that the fossil
record fundamentally conflicted with Darwin's idea of gradualism.
"The history of most fossil species," he wrote, "includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism [gradual evolution from one
species to another]:
" Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional [evolutionary] change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty
much the same as when they disappear; morphological [anatomical or structural] change is usually limited and directionless.
" Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once
and 'fully formed'" ("Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, May 1977, pp. 13-14, emphasis added).
[edit on 12/10/2009 by Locoman8]