...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [IMG]https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1395620657l/2262615.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE][b]Darwin Recognized That the Fossil Record in His Day Did Not Match What His Theory Predicted.[/b] The fossil record is the documented collection of animal and plant fossils known worldwide. Darwin recognized that [b]this particular body of evidence was of pivotal importance for eventually proving his theory[/b]. For that reason, a closer look at the fossil record is necessary to better assess the theory of evolution. When Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, [b]he surprisingly included a two-chapter apology (Difficulties of the Theory and On the Imperfection of the Geological Record) in which he recognized that the fossils collected by scientists prior to 1859 did not correspond with his theory of evolution[/b]. While fossils of invertebrates, fish, reptiles, birds, mam - mals, and humans had been discovered, [b]the fossil record still lacked sufficient evidence of inverte - brates changing into fish; of fish changing into amphibians; and of reptiles changing into birds and mammals.[/b] In other words, there were “gaps” in the fossil record. The [b]transitional forms between the animal groups (also referred to as intermediates or ancestors) were, in large part, missing.[/b] Darwin [b]acknowledged this discrepancy in The Origin of Species. 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[/b].” 1 Interestingly, Darwin formulated his theory [b]despite what the fossils disclosed. Ideally, a scientist devel- ops a theory from patterns of “known” data, but Darwin did the opposite.[/b] He predicted the [b]data would be found later[/b]. [QUOTE]“Darwin [b]devotes two chapters of The Origin [of Species] to the fossil record.[/b] And you might think that’s because Darwin, like most of his intellectual descendants, [b]would have seen the fossil record as the confirmation of his theory[/b]. That you could really see, directly document, the evolution of life from the Cambrian to the present. [b]But, in fact, when you read The Origin [of Species], it turns out that Darwin’s two chapters are a carefully worded apology in which he argues that natural selection is correct despite the fact that the fossils don’t particularly support it.[/b]” 2 –— Dr. Knoll[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Read more: https://imgur.com/vLryzPJ (p87) https://imgur.com/qO6dp8K (p88) https://imgur.com/55Is7hq (p89) https://imgur.com/jHio2Dp (p90) https://imgur.com/6InPtWj (p91) https://imgur.com/ej4oYf4 (p92) https://imgur.com/oG8xJXn (p93) https://imgur.com/l6HHpl6 (p94) https://imgur.com/JYOeGnH (p95) https://imgur.com/WpEAix1 (p96) https://imgur.com/ikOi0Xh (p97) https://imgur.com/9frXC11 (p98) https://imgur.com/7bvukHe (p99) https://imgur.com/UZ91VDU (p100) https://imgur.com/LPWKFCg (p101) https://imgur.com/8L6fM4h (p102) https://imgur.com/vMoAcHb (p103) https://imgur.com/cgBvhFK (p104) https://imgur.com/jR9QgPP (p105) https://imgur.com/mSuD9De (p106) https://imgur.com/6ICmdVm (p107) https://imgur.com/BPT0Xi8 (p108) https://imgur.com/MVCvqal (p109) https://imgur.com/11hUuqm (p110) https://imgur.com/1Qsg45l (p111) https://imgur.com/WLj0h7l (p112) [URL=https://books.google.nl/books?id=avpVUs7AtmkC&pg=PT105&dq=carl+werner+grande+experiment+Darwin+believed+his+theory+would+be+upheld&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKlOrIm6LdAhUP4YUKHcxtD3UQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q&f=false]Source[/URL] [/qb][/QUOTE]Excellent reference. Darwin was proposing a theory without all the evidence from the fossil record, but a theory that fit well with the evidence from more recent species such as humans or turtles and so forth. And many biologists follow this general theory of evolution based on more recent tangible evidence of speciation and evolution all the while acknowledging the gaps and difficulties with the ancient record. (I personally find it highly unlikely that anybody will have all the data to understand what happened 500 million years ago in biological evolution. That is too much a gap in time, not to mention the 500 million years preceding it.) That said, I don't see it as "bad" or "wrong" for science to try to reconstruct what took place based on "material" evidence that is available to formulate hypotheses. Here is a good blog post covering some of the issues surrounding the Cambrian explosion relative to the debate over evolution vs creationism (to me this is what this "controversy" mostly boils down to). [QUOTE] There's considerable debate among evolutionary biologists about what caused this relatively rapid appearance of diverse and disparate large fossils. Intelligent Design Creationist, Stephen Meyer decided that such a debate casts serious doubt on evolution as an explanation for the history of life so he wrote a book called Darwin's Doubt. Meyer thinks he has a much more reasonable explanation. He believes that a supernatural being visited the Earth about 540 million years ago and noticed that it was teeming with life—lots of plants, algae, fungi, protozoa, and bacteria. The god(s) thought there should be some bigger creatures called "animals" so he/she/it/they built a few and let them loose to reproduce and evolve.[/QUOTE] http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/molecular-evidence-supports-evolution.html Another view of evolution from a genetic perspective. Obviously they still don't have all the answers and they are guessing about a lot, which only makes sense. Genetic science is only about 80 years old and practical manipulation of genes and reconstruction of whole genomes far less than that. So I don't expect them to have all the answers any time soon, especially about what happened 500 million to a billion years ago. But I wouldn't say the science of genetics is 'bad' or should be discarded. So in a sense, things haven't moved far from Darwin's time, we still don't have all the answers (and there is no reason to assume we EVER will) but that doesn't mean to me that science itself is a problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJm5jHhJNBI [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3