Darwin lobby: We have the bumper sticker. We win.
| September 17, 2011 | Posted by News under Evolution, Intelligent Design, News |
In August we noted that National Center for Science Education was running a bumper sticker contest
They may have declared their winner. Folk have been seeing this bumper sticker around town:
We have the fossils. We win.
That would be good news for Darwin, who didn’t think the fossil record supported him, but hoped it would, one day.
The trouble is, that has been the trade secret of paleontology (Stephen Jay Gould) that it doesn’t support him. It supports sudden, rapid emergence, which almost certainly means a non-Darwinian origin for change in life forms.
However, the lobby’s choice seems intuitively right. The slogan appeals to people who don’t know much about the issues except where they stand. Who they support. And what their views are.
These days, those people make the best, most reliable Darwinists.
Here’s the promo for the sticker, for example:
A reminder that in the argument over evolution there is really only one type of evidence, and it’s overwhelmingly on the side of those who believe in evolution.
Oh? Only fossils matter? So all that supposed genetic evidence is bunk?
In many cases – if the history we are piecing together is correct – the fossils only tell us something in the light of other types of evidence. When two lines of evidence must be taken together, we cannot say “there is really only one type of evidence.”
So, on the whole, Darwin’s pressure group has connected with its base. The people who do not wonder about things like that.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
26 Responses to Darwin lobby: We have the bumper sticker. We win.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Show me the fossils!
Strange that the vast majority of fossils are of marine invertebrates (>95%), and in that vast majority we do not see evidence of universal common descent let alone evidence for blind, undirected chemical processes.
And this:
is bogus because ID is not anti-evolution. And if “evolution” is defined as a change in allele frequency over time not even YEC is anti-evolution.
So I guess all the NCSE has is equivocation.
Quite the pathetic lot, these evolutionists…
Michael Behe accepts the fossil record as evidence for common descent.
I think his opinion carries more than the usual weight, since he is an outspoken critic of the mechanism of evolution.
If all you have is a bumper sticker, everything looks like a bumper.
(I couldn’t find this in a Google search, but someone must have thought of it before me. Since short phrases don’t get copyright protection, it could be used on a bumper sticker.)
This bumper sticker is unintentionally ironic. Any ID supporter could put it on his bumper. Think about it. The bumper sticker supports ID if by “the fossils” one means the overwhelming majority of fossils that show (as Darwin admitted) that Darwinism did not happen.
He does? Strange that the FR doesn’t support universal common descent. And even stranger that any scientist relies on circumstantial evidence…
Correction- the mechanisms of DARWINIAN evolution.
No, it doesn’t, and Stephen Jay Gould didn’t think so.
Darwin “admitted” no such thing, and the fossils don’t show that “Darwinism did not happen”.
Fossils best support the view that a major catastrophic worldwide event at a point in time past led to the sudden burial of millions/billions of living organisms. These organisms were not intermediate forms or transitional species slowly “evolving,” in Darwinian terms, into other wholly different kinds. They were fully formed and as distinct as we find them today in their fossilized remains.
Darwinian “evolution” has relied on an erroneous understanding of the mechanics of geologic stratification. Flume experiments, as well as observations of sedimentaion and stratification in floods and other water-effect events, have now more than conclusively revealed how strata are laid down and built up (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBv-4jrzmNw).
Fossils best support the biblical account of a global flood that occurred in the days of Noah.
The fossil record cannot support any genetic mechanism. That means they cannot support Darwinism, neo-darwinism nor design.
EL:
“Darwin “admitted” no such thing, and the fossils don’t show that “Darwinism did not happen”.”
Did Darwin not say: “The case, at present, must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
He also went on to say that if the pattern holds it would be a genuine argument against his theory. Well it has done just that and more.
“At present” is 150 years later. Has sufficient time not yet passed; considering the extensive worldwide searches, new finds consistently falling into existing groupings, strata revealing analogous fauna and flora no matter the global location.
Darwin wasn’t afraid to recognise the weaknesses in his own theory; he laid out some of the failings thereof himself, which have held to this very day.
Guy Berthault has conducted arguably the most comprehensive research on stratography and the so-called geologic column on which Darwinism rests (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related.)
Fossils found in geologic strata have been erroneously assumed to have been deposited over long periods of time. The deeper in the strata, the older the fossils are assumed to be. Berthault’s work shows this to be a gross error. In reality, several depths of strata are laid down simultaneously by flowing particle-laden water. The particles are sorted/laid down by size.
Observations at Mount St. Helens in WA have also shown that geologic strata happen much more rapidly and in shorter than had been assumed (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flrhqjN5BHo.)
Strata that now look like they must have taken hundreds or thousands of years to build up were laid down in a few hours. It is time to rewrite the “geologic column” and the false assumptions it is has fed, foremot among them the notion of Darwinian evolution.
Your argument, if true, destroys the opening post. Oops.
Still fighting for a young-earth, are we? You’re going to embarrass your ID compatriots here if you’re not careful…
Re: the Gould quote-mine in OP. I call shenanigans. It is unfair and unscholarly to quote it without also telling innocent readers (a) that Gould was referring to the very-small differences between closely-related species (which is what “Punctuated Equilibrium” was about — the “gaps” between the species are so small they are well within what creationists typically assume is “evolution within the created kind.”; and (b) telling readers about Gould’s further statements, e.g.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....part3.html
If you use that sort of quote-mine argument on any academic who knows anything about what Gould thought, they will instantly and rightly conclude that you either don’t know what you are talking about or worse. Why do you guys try shenanigans like this?? They always backfire. Is your goal permanent marginalization? Because that’s where these kinds of unprofessional arguments take you.
My argument is true and the opening post is about your sorry position and its asnine, untrue bumper-sticker
We have the fossils. We win.
Really? When did they get them? Must have happened recently.
Perhaps they could show them to us, not to mention evolutionist Lynn Margulis who stated:
I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. …
There is no gradualism in the fossil record… ‘Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the discontinuity.
Here’s some suggestions for the darwinists’ bumper sticker:
“We have the propaganda”
“We don’t need any evidence, we KNOW it’s true”
“All darwin dissenters will be EXPELLED!”
“Academic freedom – the enemy of darwinists”
“Darwin – bow down and worship him”
I CAN’T BELIEVE IT!!!
BEAUTIFUL!!
CREATIONISTS!! They made a terrible mistake.
They are saying a biological theory. A theory about the glory of living life is founded and to be persuasive on another subject of enquiry. GEOLOGY!!!
Yes.
They are right.
Evolutions evidence is greatly reliant on non biological evidence.
As it would be if it was not true.
A biological subject could be in error if its evidence was not from biological investigation by scholars in biology.
INSTEAD the evidence is from geological investigation (including shovels) by geologists.
The fossils have meaning ONLY if they show sequence and this in time.
Without the time proclaimed by geology there is either too little time or no time.
As some posters said here there is no reason to see the geological strata, below the k-t line I say, as anything but laid in a single event called Noahs flood.
Without the geology presumptions evolution is plain wrong.
Yet the point for thinking creationists to stress is indeed that they have no dominant worthy evidence for evolution based on biological (sticky stuff) investigation.
They pick casts of former life(not sticky) and proclaim conclusions from these casts entirely dependent on the geological presumptions.
The fossils are silent on biology. only the geology is talking.
Thats not biological evidence and has been the flaw in the logic of evolution all along as far as claiming evidence.
If the geology turned out wrong completely and importantly then it would be very apparent HAVING THE FOSSILS was never having testable evidence of a BIOLOGICAL theory.
They blundered.
I think it should read:
We have the fossils. We lose!
The fossil record shows stasis, sudden appearances, out of sequence organisms, an embarrassing paucity(if any at all) of fossils that can truly be considered missing links, etc.
Another option for them to consider:
Our interpretation of the fossils trumps all others! We win!
This is the thing. Fossils prove nothing in and of themselves. The fossil evidence has to be interpreted. Evolutionists only allow interpretations that fit their theory. And even then, the fossil record is mostly problematic for them.
The bumper sticker is a good one as it helps to preserve the myth that fossils in and of themselves prove evolution to be true. The facts though, indicate otherwise. But, wearing evolutionary blinders, they are unable to see this and get really touchy when someone else sees something different in the fossil record.
If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
But is this what Darwin found? No. He lamented, “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.”
The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: “The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.” He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the [evolutionary] views here entertained.”
Now, after well over a century of extensive digging, vast numbers of fossils have been unearthed. Is the record still so “imperfect”? The book Processes of Organic Evolution comments: “The record of past forms of life is now extensive and is constantly increasing in richness as paleontologists find, describe, and compare new fossils.”10 And Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier adds: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.”
Hence, A Guide to Earth History declares: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”
After all this time, and the assembling of millions of fossils, what does the record now say? Evolutionist Steven Stanley states that these fossils “reveal new and surprising things about our biological origins.” The book A View of Life, written by three evolutionists, adds: “The fossil record is full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explain.”
What is it that these evolutionary scientists have found to be so “surprising” and are “unable to explain”?
What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected. (Emphasis mine)
Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”
Nick Matzke, as to the the two examples of ‘supposed’ transitional forms in your Gould quote, let’s see how well the ‘transitions stand up to even a little scrutiny, shall we???
first:
Yet Nick, being the unbiased observer you are, the first site I come across points out some very serious ‘scientific’ concerns for the ‘shoe-horning’ that neo-Darwinists have imposed on the fossil record, as well as a concern for the lack of a demonstrated mechanism:
Perhaps the second transitional series from your Gould quote will not be so pathetic Nick:
Yet just recently Ian Tattersall, who is certainly no lightweight in such matters, observed this ‘discontinuity’ in the fossil record in a peer-reviewed paper:
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, neo-Darwinists do not have a demonstrated mechanism to explain the transition from some hypothetical ape-like creature to man:
The problem with attacking the fossil record as evidence for Darwinian evolution is that you will also be attacking front-loading. If organisms were front-loaded into existence, the fossil record would result in a pattern very much like the pattern expected from Darwinian evolution.
There are transitional fossils at every major level of taxonomy. There are transitional fossils at the tetrapod transtion, the mammal-like reptiles, theropod dinosaurs to birds, land mammals to whales, and in the human fossil record. I have been working in that record for over twenty years and transition is the rule. In fact, there are fossils that are so transitional that palaeoanthropologists argue about which grade to place them in.
As it turns out, we share up to 9% of our genes with Neandertals. And why, for crying out loud, are you quoting a lawyer about the genetic data?
Eh? Why? That means that God micromanaged species almost down to the population level, killing off countless species over time in the process.
Jimpithecus, perhaps you would care demonstrate exactly how just one gene/protein came to be by purely neo-Darwinian means?
Jimpithecus states,
and yet we find, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, that the most dramatic differences are when the vast majority of phyla first appeared in the Cambrian Explosion: