Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design Video

Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design

Spread the love

Vid with Gunter Bechly

The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Gunter Bechly: Dickinsonia is NOT likely an animal. “Altogether, there is hardly convincing evidence that Dickinsonia was an animal, but substantial evidence that it belonged to an “alien” clade of Ediacaran organisms with a distinct body plan and without a clear relationship to later forms of life. ”

Fossil dragonfly named in Mike Behe’s honor has implications for ID


Why a four-eyed fossil lizard is a problem for Darwinism (Bechly’s view)

One Reply to “Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design

  1. 1
    Tom Robbins says:

    Finally – with evidence from genomics complementing the gaps found in the fossil record, no amount of excuses explain why, if we slowly morphed from a fish to a human, why is the empirical evidence for change not show more plasticity? Why Did all the major phyla show up at the first neo-second of geological time, with nothing of interest before, AND nothing at all IN BETWEEN phyla – even Evolutionists said you will never find vertebrates in the cambrian, as the slow and gradual transition from sponge to fish to man excludes this possibility, and vertebrates are a much more advanced body plan – then we found several vertebrates in the Cambrian. Why does genetic data confirm rapid appearance as well? Scientist need to start swallowing their pride, as they could be a part of the most amazing, most awe inspiring, most wondrous discovery in Biology – punctuated equilibrium does not work, as it requires way to small populations and also only accounts for one out of thousands of animals within a population, so even though THAT particular “hopeful monster” showed up, his/her changes would still become invisible to the population – we are talking about many creation events it seems. The history of HomoX, is also now not a smooth progression, but several homoX kinds habitating around similar timeframes, does not exactly fit the notion of some smooth transformation, the fantasy on banners that even Stephen J. Gould hatted as it was just that, pulled from a person’s imagination. To me the idea that a fish is an ancestor of mankind, is a very ancient and pagan idea from various religious ideas that we were all related from the very first life form also linked to notions of Gia. But Orphan Genes, HGT, have put an end to this fantasy, as it is becoming clear, that similarities in protein coding portions of DNA are of little importance, and only represent a toolkit for the organism to use. And suddenly it makes sense why man’s DNA is 50% the same as a banana, but we are infinitely different. It also makes sense why modern chimps have a very similar toolkit as homo sapien sapien, as they require many of the same proteins, but nonetheless does not mean we are a descendant from a common cousin. When the human genome is made up of around 20% (If I remember correctly, maybe 10%) Orphan genes, and so are most mammals, we clearly see an injection of very specific information, not available to our “ancestors”, and that if we are indeed all related, it is only by re-use of the same code, what every programmer does – you don’t throw out code that gets you part of the way to what you need, you simply modify existing code, and add new modules to it.

Leave a Reply