An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[DoomYoshi]

Darwin also said that heredity is passed on by gemmules in the blood a la Lamarck. Obviously he wasn't right about everything. The whole point is that theories do evolve as new evidence is presented.

[DoomYoshi]

In any case Steve jones also has a rather famous lecture entitled "Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right".

[betiko]

Immunology and "Western medicine" are often targets too.

western medecine shouldn't even exist, it's going against god's will to cure people!!!

[PLAYER57832]

:

The idea of where life started and how it has progressed has nothing to do with the question of God?

The Bible does not give exact details of how life formed. It is not, never was intended to be a scientific text. Further, you can go back into ancient Judaic text, arguments and find that there has always been a scientific-type question about life' s origin. The days referred to in the Bible are not humanitie's day, based on the Earth circiling the sun (a sun that did not exist until creation had begun), they are God's days. How old is the Earth, etc are all questions not answered specifically in the Bible. Scholars have come up with many answers. In ancient times, they did not even really have the concept of millions, never mind the idea that the world could be billions of years old. It was 3, meaning many and "thousands" sort of like we now, today use the term "millions" to mean a huge number past counting, not a specific number.. though it can also be a specific number.

Similar to the below quoted comments of ComicBoy, you are trying to quantify and split things into groups which cannot be split. I think it's quite basic that if there is no God or Gods, as some will have it, then He/She/They could not have had a hand in creation. Whereas if there is a God/s it would be difficult to say that our beginnings and continuation were without a contribution from such a source.

If that were true, then why is it that almost all Jews accept evolution? Nothing about Evolutionary theory denies God, though some folks do try to make that claim ... some people make all kinds of claims.

Despite what you seem to have been taught, most people within Christianity actually have no problem with evolution, and in the US, most people who accept evolution also accept God (though not all are Christian). The Bible declares that God made everything. Evolution talks about the method that God might have used.

And... well, feel free to oppose the evidence that exist. As has been said many times, there could be other theories, but you have not provided anything to counter it, except your personnal belief that is very much opposed by most scholars within Christianity. In fact, its basically one group.. led by Dr Morris ,that oppose it.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't have time to play "beat up the fundie" just now, but I wanna mention something.

Viceroy posted some of this junk in the religon thread. I actually debunked every point.(I was bored)
He said: "I won't answer to that, it's too much work, I don't spend my evenings doing this blahbahblah".

2 weeks later he has now written what? like 20k words espousing more bullshit theories in this new thread ?

You've got to understand people, this is how the creationists "debate". They throw 100 bullshit claims at the wall, they then ignore the 95 that get refuted and claim that because 5 of them cannot at the present be expressly refuted they must be right. If pressed they will simply throw 100 more bullshit claims at the wall. Just read a couple pages of the Lionz stuff, it's exactly the same.

Essentially they are this:


I mean, if you enjoy continuously beating down the doll only to watch it pop back up and pretend nothing happened, then by all means. (I know I enjoy it too sometimes). Just thought I'd point out that the chances of a fundie actually acknowledging they MIGHT be wrong are basically nil. (otherwise they wouldn't be a fundie in the first place)

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, these folks and these ideas are permeating US society in ways that most people don't realize. They are influencing our children's education, denegrating it at a time when they need more and better understanding of ALL science, but particularly biology and natural resources.

Don't give up. You can stop debating a particular person, sure, but keep your eyes and ears pealed for others. This battle is far too important. Don't be drawn into a "Christianity or no" question, either, unless you come from a position of faith.. you will do more harm than good. This debate is not about Christianity. It is about truth and honesty. The young Earthers are lying... we don't need to attack faith. I have the same faith. I just accept that people can lie. I accept the Bible is truth, but people can distort it heavily. Science is not perfect, either, of course, but it is a process. It is a process that leads to truth, an so far, nothing the young earthers have come up with comes anywhere close.

[PLAYER57832]

And so is the manager of the museum or the scientist who knows better really going to hurt his own wallet by disclosing the true facts? I don't think so.

Interesting theory, but where is your proof?

In particular, where is your proof that the evidence all these evil museums present is false?

See, you can come up with all the ideas you want, all the reasons to explain why any scientific exibit might be flase, but it means nothing unless you can show that the information truly IS false.

Oh, and your assumption that everyone here has just learned all this in museums is just plain false. Anyone can go out and find, discover fossils. We can all certainly observe the striations of cut banks, see volcanic activity and its result.. if we travel. We can see the evidence of long-standing erosion in places like the Grand Canyon, see upbuilding in places like Lava beds national monument, see erosion on almost any hillside, particularly any CA beach. We can see links between animal types, even now, genetic links and histories.

So, again... if you have the vaunted evidence against all that.. please do show it. BUT, note, one thing you have greatly misunderstood. While we tend to speak of the "theory of Evolution" as if it were one, unified theory, it is really many, many theories put together.

The overall theory is that life changes over time. The nyou have a whole bunch of theories about how that actually happens. As you have noted, there are quite a few places where we know little about the line of descent or where there are big controversies. But, you ignore the fact that we also have quite a few pretty clear lines. Fish, not surprisingly, provide a pretty decent picture of many segnments.

Also, you confuse pieces of the concept. The overall idea, that species change over time, is actually NOT theory, it is actually proven fact. Species do change over time. All the details of how we got each species is definitely not proven, but disputing parts and pieces of that don't come close to disabusing the basic idea that species do change over time. Ironically, though you dispute it, the facts are so firm that even young earthers now have to admit this bit. Tehy just try to claim it is something other than evolution, refer to terms like "microevolution". You can talk all you want about "microevolution" or whatever new phrase young earthers have come up with to try and claim that the evidence we show is not really evidence, but that is a fiction they have created. Its like the claim that because we still have horseshoe crabs and other ancient species evolution did not happen. We have them, but we also have many species that are not the same as what existed before.

[PLAYER57832]

I have enough time to verify that what scientists say is correct. In fact, most of my non-CC time is spent doing just that.

Also, metsfan, evolution is a fact.

When a bacterium in a hospital all of a sudden becomes antibiotic resistant, that is evolution. It happens, we have seen it happen. Evolution is a word to describe a process which we know exists. Perhaps you could argue that evolution from a common ancestor is a theory, but I don't have any more time for this stupid thread.

Sorry, but you, too are confusing the issue.

The basic idea that species change over time IS fact. However, most lines of evidence regarding specific descent are not. Be very, very careful in your terms. Just like in a court of law, the words you use can be used against you.

[PLAYER57832]

Yes; I agree that all elephants are part of the same family and that it is obvious. These are examples of mutations but not evolution. When you show me an elephant with wings then we would have found an intermediate species between the elephant and some bird family creature.

This type of "argument" is part of why young Earthers are laughed at in any credible scientific circle. Life doesn't have any such preset requirements. Science observes what IS and what WAS, not what we think "should" be.

Why would an elephant develop wings? Might make a nice story, but in real life mutations happen and whether a mutation continues on and is replicated in progeny is complicated. A lot of whether a particular trait survives or not has to do with luck, part (ONLY part!) is what is called "natural selection", where a superior trait gives one animal an advantage over another.

BUT.. and this is very, very important. The significance/importance of luck versus increase in survivability has a lot to do with conditions.

Let's take a simplistic example. When food is plentiful, etc the biggest "baddest" buck will tend to outfight the smaller scrawny bucks and get more does... passing on more genes. A gene that prmotes big size and strength, then will tend to be perpetuated. BUT.... in the real world there are complications. A bigger buck, for example, might have a body type that creates bigger muscle, but it might also require more food. A smaller, scrawnier buck might survive better in harsh times, times of drought and poor food. OR, that "scrawny" little buck might be somehow faster... and say, able to "sneak in" and "do his thing" whilst the bigger bucks are fighting, then sneak off unnoticed. Nothing in nature is simple, certainly not as simple or stupid as claiming that unless elephants can fly evolution isn't happening!!!

But you can not present any intermediate creatures because there are none. You would think, as I noted in my article, that if evolution takes millions of years of gradual changes for one type of creature to become another, that there would be plenty of examples of this intermediate creature found in the fossil records.

[sigh]
I already mentioned the T-rex. T-rex progeny in their eggs have rudimentary feathers. Also, the T-Rex is moving from being a 4 legged creature to a 2 legged one.

There is also the Ceolocanth, hagfish, etc.

Here is a wikkipedia article on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils
I will quote the introduction because it bring up some important points:

Possibly the best known of all transitional fossils, the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographicaThis is a tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived organisms to which it is related). The fossils are listed in series, showing the transition from one group to another, representing significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines. These changes often represent major changes in anatomy, related to mode of life, like the acquisition of feathered wings for an aerial lifestyle in birds, or legs in the fish/tetrapod transition. As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.[1]

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.

See, the problem is not that transitions don't exist, its that you have somehow been led to believe that they "ought" to be something other than what they are. Its really like people who envision God to be some kind of giant Santa, and say that because he did not answer this or that request, there is no God. God is far more complex than that. God's creations are also far more complex and the creation far more involved than humans can, even now readily imagine.

Does it not seem too selective that only a certainly family of creature is found among the fossil records and no intermediate creatures?

To say that means you have ignored vast realms of evidence. You can believe whatever you wish when you ignore reality.

Science requires that you ACKNOWLEDGE reality, accept and deal with even those result you dislike.

We present you with pictures, data and you just say "eh... its fake". That's an easy, lazy response. If you want reality, then show us something that actually supports any idea you have. Don't just claim all our evidence is non-existant.

Oh, yeah.. and this evidence isn't just found in isolated, lofty museums, it is found in virtually EVERY museum (except, of course, the creationist one), AND it is readily observable. Also, you have here several who have direct knowledge and experience.

If you wish to claim that every one of us is just lying... well..... your words speak for themselves dishonesty doesn't require justification. Only truth sets those requirements. So, well, when you come in and claim everything we say is false, and present nothing of your own except to just say "its wrong"... well, guess who really looks the liar!

[Viceroy63]

Regardless of whether we need them or not, they have them:

http://ncse.com/rncse/20/5/origin-whale ... t-evidence

Sorry to take so long to get back to you but there is only one of me and many people that respond so I can't get to everyone at the same time. Especially because I do read what others post like that website about the whales. I read that but they really did not present any evidence in the way of a transitional species. They only remarked the relationship between mammals of Sea and Land creatures.

Yes they presented what they called evidence but again it was nothing conclusive but mere coincidence. That same argument can be used to say that mammals on land evolved from whales but since the theory of evolution has already used the dinosaur to explain mammals then they can't very well use Whale at the same time now can they? I don't know why people don't get it that scientist are making this up as they go along.

Before anyone starts saying that I am attacking scientist and science everywhere let me just say, I am not. But when it comes to the Darwinian theory of evolution that life on this planet arose from lower life forms, that is a flat out lie and it is a documented fact that every single piece of evidence that these evolutionist scientist have put forth in support of the theory of evolution, has either been a terribly bad misrepresentation or a flat out fabrication.

You stated that, "Regardless of whether we need them or not, they have them:" but I ask you to think about this for just a minute. This argument over the transitional species has been going on for over 150 years now. Since Darwin first wrote his book, "The Origin of Species." Why then was not the first person to discover the transitional species between any two species, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for an outstanding scientific achievement? Don't you think that such a find of the century, merits such acknowledgment and appreciation?

Yet to my knowledge, no Nobel prize was ever awarded to any paleontologist or Archeologist past or present for finding the missing link that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt, the theory of evolution. If they did then it would no longer be considered a "Theory" now would it? Yet science news is constantly broadcasting how some new piece of information or discovery may prove that evolution is correct but then we all learn that it was just a hoax.

One after another, after another, after another, they all turn out to be hoaxes or misrepresentations. Yet PBS and others do documentaries on this subject all the time. National Geographic is famous for constantly doing articles on these hoaxes before we learn the truth. Perhaps a good question is why don't National Geographic better research the source? Or are they are just in it for the money? Hmmm!



In a really long article by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. said... And please notice that in every response I quote what others, Professionals are saying and not my words alone. Those who ask me what evidence I present to support my OP, obviously have not read it or any of the comments that I present as evidence or they would have noted all the different quotations.

"As someone with a Berkeley Ph.D. in biology, I dispute Quammen's characterization of Darwin's doubters as confused and ignorant. On the contrary, Quammen's article makes it abundantly clear why it is quite reasonable to doubt Darwinism: The evidence for it is "underwhelming," at best."
-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute
(http://www.discovery.org/a/2292)

But lets get back on track shall we. The horse evolution example, a total fabrication. The Lucy evolution of a homo-erectus/Ape, was really part modern human and part modern ape which some one failed to noticed but it did eventually get found out. And then there is this Whale which is more of a coincidence than a fact. And so it goes with every example that evolutionist science claim to support the theory of evolution.

I mean just think of it? According to evolution, all life began in a primordial soup of hydrogen based and other matters. Those cells that grouped together for protection became the first organism to form. The need to feed gave rise to adaptations like tentacles or the ability to move about. Eventually they learned to swim forming the first multiple organ species.

Notice that each time a evolutionary event occurs the creature is adding something more to itself that it did not have before. This is the best description of a true intermediate species. You have an ape and then you have an ape that walks upright and that means he doesn't climb trees to well. And then you have a modern man that doesn't climb trees at all and walks upright. Now back to the story of evolution...

When in lakes or waterholes the water dried up some fish, out of a need to survive formed a kind of lung in order to breath until the waters came back. Eventually some of these lung fish never returned to the water and form the many different forms of life that we see today. That's the gist of it any way. It was always out of some need to feed or survive.

Now we are expected to believe that the whale actually evolved from land mammals who found the waters more enticing as a food source? isn't that like reverse evolution? They can't make up their minds which is better for survival, in the water, out of the water? But they still can't find a missing link between the two! Or explain why the food source in the water was better than on land at the time?

Do you know what a theory really is? A possible explanation. And that is all. It's not real and it's not fact and it's not evidence. The moment that evidence is found to support the possible explanation then it ceases to be a theory or possible explanation and becomes, an explanation. I have a theory that life was created on this planet. That's my possible explanation and the fossil records like the Cambrian Explosion for example would tend to support my theory. But my theory will never be taught in schools and universities across America as factual evidence, as the theory of evolution is, because the constitution separates Church and State.

But fiction such as the whale evolving from land mammal and no intermediate species has been found, to support that, Oh well, that is taught and accepted as fact???



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nS-RifoPFA

To MeDeFe:

Darwinian evolution is what Charles Darwin proposed as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. It's what he wrote. He made the rules. Now, because Darwinian evolution can't be proven it's evolved to include other explanations? And to what point do we continue this evolution of a theory? When will we accept that the Theory of evolution does not explain the diversity of life on the planet? Rather than to continue to make adaptations to the theory to include new data and findings?

You also missed the point that I made. Allow me to say it again below...

"As someone with a Berkeley Ph.D. in biology, I dispute Quammen's characterization of Darwin's doubters as confused and ignorant. On the contrary, Quammen's article makes it abundantly clear why it is quite reasonable to doubt Darwinism: The evidence for it is "underwhelming," at best."
-Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute
(http://www.discovery.org/a/2292)

And notice who is stating that?

As I see it the only evolution going on here, is the continuing and ever evolving theory of the theory of evolution.

[MeDeFe]

Now we are expected to believe that the whale actually evolved from land mammals who found the waters more enticing as a food source?

Yes, basically.

isn't that like reverse evolution?

No.

They can't make up their minds which is better for survival, in the water, out of the water?

Where and how survival is easiest depends on circumstances, and circumstances can and do change. It's called "evolutionary pressure" iirc.



Your main problem is that you think evolution should be like a lot of parallel lines, neatly progressing from one species through intermediate forms to another species. It's actually closer to a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

[Lootifer]

Holy crapsticks Viccy my man; if you aren't going to be quiet could you at the least take a course in plain english?

[Symmetry]

Now we are expected to believe that the whale actually evolved from land mammals who found the waters more enticing as a food source?

Yes, basically.

isn't that like reverse evolution?

No.

They can't make up their minds which is better for survival, in the water, out of the water?

Where and how survival is easiest depends on circumstances, and circumstances can and do change. It's called "evolutionary pressure" iirc.



Your main problem is that you think evolution should be like a lot of parallel lines, neatly progressing from one species through intermediate forms to another species. It's actually closer to a big ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

Kudos on the Dr Who reference.

[Timminz]

[Viceroy63]

Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.

Here are the facts in case you are interest. The following is a very condensed version of the 14 facts posted in my Original Post. This condensed version posted below can be read in it's entirety at...

evolution-facts.org

The Best Examples of Evolution have Proven Worthless

In all the other "evidences of evolution" which we have examined in this book, we have not found one indication of any transition across species.

But, the evolutionists tell us that, in the fossil record, there are TWO times when one species evolved into another. These are considered very important, and have been widely publicized, so we shall discuss each one now in some detail:

Eohippus and the Horse Series

1 - THE HORSE SERIES
30 DIFFERENT HORSES—

In the 1870s, *Othniel C. Marsh claimed to have found 30 different kinds of horse fossils in Wyoming and Nebraska. He reconstructed and arranged these fossils in an evolutionary series, and they were put on display at Yale University. Copies of this "horse series" are to be found in many museums in the United States and overseas. Visually, it looks convincing.

"The development of the horse is allegedly one of the most concrete examples of evolution. The changes in size, type of teeth, shape of head, number of toes, etc., are frequently illustrated in books and museums as an undeniable evidence of the evolution of living things."
—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), p. 193.

FOURTEEN FLAWS IN THE SERIES—

When we investigate this so-called "horse series" carefully, we come upon 14 distinct problems that negate the possibility that we have here a genuine series of evolved horses. We discover that the evolutionists have merely selected a variety of different size animals, arranged them from small to large, and then called it all "a horse series."

1 - Different animals in each series.

In the horse-series exhibit we see a small, three-toed animal that grows larger and becomes our single-toed horse. But the sequence varies from museum to museum (according to which non-horse smaller creatures have been selected to portray "early horses"). There are over 20 different fossil horse series exhibits in the museums—with no two exactly alike! The experts select from bones of smaller animals and place them to the left of bones of modern horses, and, presto! another horse series!

2 - Imaginary, not real.

The sequence from small many-toed forms to large one-toed forms is completely absent in the fossil record. Some smaller creatures have one or two toes; some larger ones have two or three.

3 - Number of rib bones

. The number of rib bones does not agree with the sequence. The four toed Hyracothedum has 18 pairs of ribs; the next creature has 19; there is a jump to 15; and finally back to 18 for Equus, the modern horse.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

of teeth between these two basic types.

5 - Not from in-order strata.

The "horse" creatures do not come from the "proper" lower-to-upper rock strata sequence. (Sometimes the smallest "horse" is found in the highest strata.)

6 - Calling a badger a horse.

The first of the horses has been called "Eohippus" (dawn horse), but experts frequently prefer to call it Hyracotherium, since it is like our modern hyrax, or rock badger. Some museums exclude Eohippus entirely because it is identical to the rabbit-like hyrax (daman) now living in Africa. (Those experts who cling to their "Eohippus" theory have to admit that it climbed trees!) The four-toed Hyracotherium does not look the least bit like a horse. (The hyrax foot looks like a hoof, because it is a suction cup so the little animal can walk right up vertical trees! Horses do not have suction cups on their feet!)

"The first animal in the series, Hyracotherium (Eohippus), is so different from the modern horse and so different from the next one in the series that there is a big question concerning its right to a place in the series . . [It has] a slender face with the eyes midway along the side, the presence of canine teeth, and not much of a diastema (space between front teeth and back teeth), arched back and long tail."
—H.G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1969), pp. 194-195.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

A complete series of horse fossils in the correct evolutionary order has not been found anywhere in the world. The fossil-bone horse series starts in North America (or Africa; there is dispute about this), jumps to Europe, and then back again to North America. When they are found on the same continent (as at the John Day formation in Oregon), the three-toed and one-toed are found in the same geological horizon (stratum). Yet, according to evolutionary theory, it required millions of years for one species to make the change to another.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

There are no transitional forms between each of these "horses." As with all the other fossils, each suddenly appears in the fossil record.

[Note]
The Horse Exhibit claims that the evolution of the horse occurred over a period of 55 million years. Apparently they have at least, approximately 20 different horses over a 55 million year period. This is unheard of in Archeology but what is really unheard of is the selection of fossilized bones. That there are only 30 different horses over 55 million years is way too selective. If they have that many horses, then why not just one example of intermediate species between each horse? To say that each horse is an intermediate species to the next is not gradual evolution over millions of years or just plain logical. You just don't go from dog to horse in 30 simple steps. Why then would that require 55 million years?
-Viceroy63

9 - Bottom found at the top.

Fossils of Eohippus have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

Eohippus, the earliest of these "horses," is completely unconnected by any supposed link to its presumed ancestors, the condylarths.

11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

In South America, the one-toed ("more recent") is even found below the three-toed ("more ancient") creature.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

Nowhere in the world are the fossils of the horse series found in successive strata.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

The series shown in museum displays generally depict an increase in size; and yet the range in size of living horses today, from the tiny American miniature ponies to the enormous shires of England, is as great as that found in the fossil record. However, the modern ones are all solidly horses.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

In reality, one cannot go by skeletal remains. Living horses and donkeys are obviously different species, but a collection of their bones would place them all together.

A STUDY IN CONFUSION—

In view of all the evidence against the horse series as a valid line of upward-evolving creatures (changing ribs, continental and strata locations), Britannica provides us with an understatement:

"The evolution of the horse was never in a straight line."—*Encyclopaedia Britannica (1976 ed.), Vol. 7, p. 13.

Scientists protest such foolishness:

"The ancestral family tree of the horse is not what scientists have thought it to be. Prof. T.S. Westoll, Durham University geologist, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science at Edinburgh that the early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong."
—*Science News Letter, August 25, 1951, p. 118.

"There was a time when the existing fossils of the horses seemed to indicate a straight-lined evolution from small to large, from dog-like to horse-like, from animals with simple grinding teeth to animals with complicated cusps of modern horses . .

[Note]
Just to make this part even more clear, some of the early horses are more complicated in design and function then the simpler and more modern day horses. This would suggest a de-evolutionary process and not an evolutionary one.
-Viceroy63

As more fossils were uncovered, the chain splayed out into the usual phylogenetic net, and it was all too apparent that evolution had not been in a straight line at all. Unfortunately, before the picture was completely clear, an exhibit of horses as an example . . had been set up at the American Museum of Natural History [in New York City], photographed, and much reproduced in elementary textbooks."
—*Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960), pp. 225-226. (Those pictures are still being used in those textbooks.)

"Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’

"When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself.

". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."
—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82.

EOHIPPUS, A "LIVING FOSSIL"—

*Hitching has little to say in favor of this foremost model of evolutionary transition:

"Once portrayed as simple and direct, it is now so complicated that accepting one version rather than another is more a matter of faith than rational choice. Eohippus, supposedly the earliest horse, and said by experts to be long extinct and known to us only through fossils, may in fact be alive and well and not a horse at all—a shy, fox-sized animal called a daman that darts about in the African bush."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 31.

NOT A HORSE AT ALL—

(*#2/11 The Horse Series*) Actually the experts tell us that Eohippus has nothing to do with horses.

"In the first place, it is not clear that Hyracotherium was the ancestral horse."
—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969), p. 149.

"The supposed pedigree of the horse is a deceitful delusion, which . . in no way enlightens us as to the paleontological origins of the horse."
—*Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World, p. 105 [French paleontologist].

OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—

*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement:

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, 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. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."
—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.

"It was widely assumed that [Eohippus] had slowly but persistently turned into a more fully equine animal . . [but] the fossil species of Eohippus show little evidence of evolutionary modification . . [The fossil record] fails to document the full history of the horse family."
—*The New Evolutionary Timetable, pp. 4, 96.

NEVER HAPPENED IN NATURE—

A leading 20th-century evolutionist writer, *George Gaylord Simpson, gave this epitaph to the burial of the horse series:

"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."
—*G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

Earlier, *Simpson said this:

"Horse phylogeny is thus far from being the simple monophyletic, so-called orthogenetic, sequence that appears to be in most texts and popularizations."
—*George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350.

SAME GAPS APPLY TO ALL OTHERS—

The same gap problem would apply to all the other species. After stating that nowhere in the world is there any trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between Hyracotherium (Eohippus) and its supposed ancestral order Condylarthra, *Simpson then gives the startling admission:

"This is true of all the thirty-two orders of mammals . . The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."—*G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944), p. 105.

OTHER SERIES—

(*#4/2 Other Series*) In addition to the Horse (Equus) Series, there are five other primary series which have been worked out by dedicated evolutionists, all of which are much less well-known or publicized.

These are the Elephant (Proboscidean) Series, the Titanotheres Series, the Ceratopsian dinosaur Series, the Foraminifera Series, and the Bivalve Series.

When one views the charts and pictures of the Horse Series, a common element is noted: Various animals are placed together in the paintings. The common feature is that they all have five characteristics in common: longer than average legs, long body, long neck, long tail, and an elongated head. Placing pictures of several creatures with these five characteristics together—and then adding a short imaginary mane to each—gives the impression that they are all "horse-like." All but one is available for examination only in fossil form.

Then we turn to the Elephant Series, and find that the animals all have a heavy torso with corresponding stouter legs, a drawn-out pig-like or elephant-like nose, and possibly tusks. All but one of the eleven is represented only in fossil imprints or bones. Here is a classic statement by a dedicated evolutionist on the non-existent "Elephant Series."

"In some ways it looks as if the pattern of horse evolution might be even as chaotic as that proposed by Osborn for the evolution of the Proboscidea [the elephant], where ‘in almost no instance is any known form considered to be a descendant from any other known form; every subordinate grouping is assumed to have sprung, quite separately and usually without any known intermediate stage, from hypothetical common ancestors in the early Eocene or Late Cretaceous.’ "
—*G.A. Kirkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 149.

The Ceratopsian Series is composed of three dinosaurs with bony armor on the back of the head while two of them have horns in different locations.

The last two, the Foraminifera Series and the Fossil Bivalve (clam) Series, are simply variously shaped shells which look very much alike in size and general appearance.

On one hand, it appears that some of these series are simply different animals with similar appearance tossed together. On the other, the possibility of genetic variation within a species could apply to a number of them. We could get the best series of all out of dogs. There is a far greater number and variety of body shapes among dogs than among any of the above series. Yet we know that the dogs are all simply dogs. Scientists recognize them as belonging to a single species.

[Note]
If all these men of science agree that evolution is not a real science, then why is it being taught in schools and universities as factual science?

Why don't publications such as National Geographic do an expose on such lies and reveal them for what they are, hoaxes perpetrated by charlatans who only desire to line their pockets with money rather than speaking the truth?

Could publications like National Geographic be part of the problem rather than part of the solution?

Why are documentaries still done on evolution and dinosaurs in particular? Could it all be part of a system of entertaining the public and feeding them what they want to believe?

Could we be so ignorant, simply because we choose to be?

Could this explain the title of my Article, "An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance."?

I must now express a theory of my own. Man is such a proud creature that to admit fallibility is beyond his grasp of possibility. He would rather argue to the death an erroneous assumption than to admit that he was wrong; That he believed in a lie. And in a worse case scenario where evidence is presented to support the truth that Man is wrong he will defend his position to the point of cursing and screaming and kicking, insulting the presenter of the errors of his ways and telling him that he is either Stupid for not believing the lie or is just plain ignorant of the truth and that the presenter of the truth is the big bad "Troll" who is doing wrong in Conquer Club forums by posting such contrary points of views.

That's my theory anyway!
-Viceroy63

To Timminz:

Yes; I did post the cover of National Geographic to illustrate the depth of the deception. That it goes as far as even television and Radio with every documentary that is made and every topic of debate exercised. But it was you who posted the larger photo displaying that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Simply put, I had to respond to that.

As to whether or not you or anyone else post of even reads this, it's a win/win situation no matter how you look at it. If I have silence and even anger some with the truth to the point where they say to me, I don't talk to trolls and so I am not posting any more comments then that means that I won my argument with the truth.

But if on the other hand I am some how able to awaken people's consciousness, even if just a little, even if they don't respond out of shame and disgust for having been duped into believing in a lie in the first place, even so then, I would have served a much greater purpose that you or even I myself could imagine. The advancement of the human condition. So it's all win/win babe.

That's the way that I see it anyway. And as for the truly ignorant, let them continue to wallow in their ignorance. I just thank my God that I am not one of them.

As a man lives, so also shall he die.
-Viceroy63.

BTW: I am not trying to bury anything. If anything is true, it's the fact that my comments get buried under a host of negative erroneous words by others. Why would you even make that assumption? But it's all gravy, as it is all written and documented facts on this thread.

[Timminz]

You were the one who posted the cover. I was simply pointing to the actual article, so as to keep anyone from incorrectly assuming that the article was pointing out legitimate problems with Darwin's theories.

If you weren't trying to bury all that dishonesty in your giant diatribes, then I wouldn't have even have posted at all.

[AAFitz]

Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.

Whats sad, is you don't realize that's exactly what you have done.

But in this case, all you got paid for your soul was ignorance, ironically enough.

[AAFitz]

Before anyone starts saying that I am attacking scientist and science everywhere let me just say, I am not. But when it comes to the Darwinian theory of evolution that life on this planet arose from lower life forms, that is a flat out lie and it is a documented fact that every single piece of evidence that these evolutionist scientist have put forth in support of the theory of evolution, has either been a terribly bad misrepresentation or a flat out fabrication.

This could not possibly be more of a contradictory statement, and so obviously, that it can only be labeled as unintelligent.

[Metsfanmax]

Perhaps you are just trying to keep the conversation going but posting a photo of a magazine that publishes articles for money is not evidence. If I were paid to, I would also say that evolution is a real science. But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread. Yet I understand that in this world there are people who would sell their very souls for even less.

You mean like the people who sell out their souls to an invisible sky daddy, based on nothing at all?

[Neoteny]

Viceroy, since you seem to have a very poor understanding of what actual scientists know about evolution, and the evolution of horses in particular, I'll provide the link below for your educational purposes.

http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/09/13 ... evolution/

Maybe after you have an idea of what scientists are actually saying about horse phylogeny without the cherry-picking, I would be happy to answer any specific questions you have, though I would prefer to take them one at a time.

[DoomYoshi]

Viceroy, the evolution of the horse family is an old concept. It used to be that eyes were taken as a perfect example of convergent evolution, and now we know that it is divergent evolution. I could bring up old posts about the evolution of eyes, and prove that they are wrong, but why bother? Why not argue against current evidence?

1 - Different animals in each series.

Scientists very often disagree about how a phylogeny fits together. Eventually, a consensus will be reached, but even long accepted phylogenies are frequently overturned. Sometimes they are upheld though (Protostomes and Deuterostomes were predicted by Dev. Biologists and upheld by molecular evidence).

2 - Imaginary, not real.

Oh?

3 - Number of rib bones

This is controlled by a single group of genes called the Hox genes. If you turn one on later, or earlier, the number of rib bones change. It's not as if there is a gene called Rib18 and it turns into Rib19 only.

4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types

Why would there be?...

5 - Not from in-order strata.

Something evolving to be larger doesn't mean it can't later evolve smaller. The whole concept of Natural Selection is that you will evolve to whatever the conditions are, not some ideal form. You must remember that the "goal" of evolution was not to make a perfect Horse. There is no "goal" which is why it is almost impossible to predict what is upcoming.


6 - Calling a badger a horse.

Just because people aren't sure of an exact phylogeny doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.

7 - Horse series exists only in museums.

This really is a weird point. The authors are grasping at straws, to put it politely.

8 - Each one distinct from others.

Once again, I ask you to define intermediate species. Also, I want you to write a list of the exact conditions required for fossilization over millions of years. You need to understand that not everything that dies becomes a fossil.

9 - Bottom found at the top.

FIrst, I repeat that we don't need to know the phylogeny for evolution to be correct. Second, just because one species derives from another doesn't mean that the parent species dies off.

10 - Gaps below as well as above.

At this point, the article becomes trolling. Most of the points are about why constructing phylogenies isn't perfect. I can't find somebody who says they are though.


11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.

This point is exactly the same as point 9.

12 - Never found in consecutive strata.

This is a repeat of point 7.

13 - Heavily keyed to size.

This one is bordering on an outright lie.

14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.

So, what is the point of the preceding 13 arguments. If bones can never find anything, why bother arguing any specifics? Why not just posit: "Since bones are useless for developing phylogenies, no evidence of evolution can ever be found".

VIceroy, you are being scammed. These people are performing a legerdemain by relying on your incomplete knowledge of what is being proposed by evolutionary theories.

[betiko]

viceroy do you really expect any credibility after what you just did with the national geographic cover?
You show the cover that is only there to sell paper with an impactfull title as a "proof" to your crazy theories, and when someone posts what the article is really about you dare attack them?

Hey, so instead of denying the theory of evolution, why don't you explain in details the creationist theory with its evidence, so we can all have a laugh?

[2dimes]

But thankfully I am not at the point in my life where I would sell out my principles and the truth for a mere loaf of bread.

What about a really nice car?

[Haggis_McMutton]

So it turns out modifying a couple genes to create some more of a certain protein can make fish embryos grow proto-limbs instead of fins: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -fins.html

My, my, what will the secret cabal of biologists think of next? Clearly this is a masonic plot to submine our cherished judeo-christian tradition.

[DoomYoshi]

So it turns out modifying a couple genes to create some more of a certain protein can make fish embryos grow proto-limbs instead of fins: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -fins.html

My, my, what will the secret cabal of biologists think of next? Clearly this is a Masonic plot to submine our cherished judeo-christian tradition.

Fixed

[jonesthecurl]

Vicedroy: how old is the universe?
Please avoid a "Wall of text" response, and just give your answer. Let's take one thing at a time.