Fossil Forensics is Amazon’s #1 Hot New Release in Paleontology

LoL! ID doesn't require God. ID doesn't say anything about worship- nothing about the who to worship, how, when and where to worship- ID has nothing that is required by religion. Clearly you are just an ignorant troll on an agenda ET

ET @61, Intelligent Design is; A religious argument for the existance of God. You don't know that? In fact it is a religious argument for the existance of a specifically Christian God. I thought that was just accepted. rvb8

Marfin (sorry, darn autocorrect)

Goodloosername, Retaliation for getting my name wrong. You say the fossil record sometimes catches evolution sometimes it does not, answer me this on what scale does evolutionary change happen, is it one amino acid at a time one gene,one cell , when going from a fish to a reptile over millions of years how many intermediary’s were there. In the Darwinian model there must have been hundreds of millions do you agree.

I suppose I would say that point mutations count as evolution, although I'm sympathetic to those who would say that they don't believe in evolution but obviously don't have an issue with such mutations occurring and so don't want the two conflated. But there probably were hundreds of millions of nucleotide changes, but far fewer amino acids changes. But if we're talking about fossils, we're talking about anatomy. goodusername

rvb8:

ID is not against evolution I am told by ID’ers, we just say you have no proof at the protein level for these changes, or how these changes drive evolution.

troll alert! Mung

rvb8:

ET; there really are universities, labs, and individuals, deeply entrenched in the study of these protein, DNA mechanisms that drive evolution.

Are you really that dense? Mere evolution is NOT being debated. Look, if you want to argue against ID it is best you actually learn what ID is about. Otherwise you will continue to look like a willfully ignorant troll. Read the following UD blog post: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/science-education/intelligent-design-is-not-anti-evolution-a-guest-post/ See if you can understand it. ET

Goodloosername, Retaliation for getting my name wrong. You say the fossil record sometimes catches evolution sometimes it does not, answer me this on what scale does evolutionary change happen, is it one amino acid at a time one gene,one cell , when going from a fish to a reptile over millions of years how many intermediary's were there. In the Darwinian model there must have been hundreds of millions do you agree. Marfin

A short while ago, about thirty years, exo-planets were ridiculed because we hadn't found physical evidence of any; now we have evidence of more than three thousand, many >200, in the 'habbitable zone'. ID is not against evolution I am told by ID'ers, we just say you have no proof at the protein level for these changes, or how these changes drive evolution. (Aaah, mistakes in replication giving altered genotypes, leading to varied expressions in phenotype? Maybe?:) ET@ 49 is a classic example of the 'incredulity', employed as argument that is the basis of ID. ET; there really are universities, labs, and individuals, deeply entrenched in the study of these protein, DNA mechanisms that drive evolution. You can find these institutions if you have a computer, and an index finger:) rvb8

EricMH @ 52: "...supporters of evolution clearly have an agenda." And they will fight to the death to defend it. I am amazed at how much time a/mat visitors spend reading and commenting on this site. I have zero desire to visit a/mat sites. Truth Will Set You Free

The fossil record is woefully incomplete and should never be hailed by a/mats as a good argument for their faith. The evidence just isn't there. Lots of philosophy, wishful thinking, and faith...but no empirical evidence for speciation. None. Truth Will Set You Free

goodusername-

Can you describe a hypothetical fossil that would be a better intermediate dino/bird than any already found?

Can you describe the genetic changes that would make such a transition possible? No? I didn't think so... ET

Margin, Sometimes the fossil record catches evolution in action and sometimes it doesn't. Can you describe a hypothetical fossil that would be a better intermediate dino/bird than any already found? goodusername

Out of one side of their mouths evolutionists say that the fossil record is incomplete given the nature of the fossilization process, ie not every organism that has died gets fossilized. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And out of the other side of their mouths they say the fossil record supports their claims (even though fossils don't say anything about a mechanism and their claims depend on the mechanisms). ET

Goodusername- Thats some nice stories they tell to salvage their precious theories, so evolution to fast to be caught by fossil record, a change from a non flying reptile to a flying reptile take a guess at a timescale. Marfin

Darwin said the fossil record should be filled with transitional fossils. That's false. DNA is supposedly the mechanism of transmission and change for phylogeny. But that's false. Even if DNA transmitted the entire genetic code, random mutations will destroy any signal there is, not amplify it. Systems tend to disorder over time, not increase in order. When put to use in computer science, evolutionary processes are very ineffective, and produce nothing like evolutionists claim, despite working at a much faster rate. No mathematical model of evolution has stood up to scrutiny. All show the inability of evolution to create information, and all are abandoned. Every time evidence is uncovered that could support a proposed mechanism of evolution, it instead falsifies the mechanism, and a new theory of evolution must be invented. Evolution itself is not useful for any scientific endeavor. Such claims merely steal credit from genetics and micro evolution in bacteria. Population genetics shows that evolutionary processes will destroy the genetic code, not improve it. I'm pretty disinterested observer of this whole debate, I'd accept evolution if good evidence and arguments were offered. But, not only are all the arguments bad, but counter arguments rely on strawmen, ad hominem, or otherwise avoiding the meat of any disproofs of evolution, and supporters of evolution clearly have an agenda. EricMH

Marfin,

If Gould saw a Darwinian pattern of transitional fossils in the fossil record they would have had no support for their P.E hypothesis , the fact that he said the extreme rarity of transitional fossils means what it says.

Of course it means what it says. And elsewhere where they write about an abundance of transitional fossils it also means what it says. The only sense that the transitional fossils don’t fit the Darwinian pattern is that they are found in the peripheral populations rather than the main bodyof a species.

And while P.E. does not mean a different mechanism of evolutionary change it does meant changes happen a lot faster and leave virtually no transitions in its wake. So you have a problem so called transitions are extremely rare this is a fact, then on the other hand you have to explain some type of hopeful monster mechanism to get species to change as rapidly as required which we know through molecular biology is nigh on impossible.So both theories, ideas, hypothesises call them what you will have serious if not fatal flaws.

Even Darwin believed that evolution can be too fast to catch by fossilization (due to its rarity), so that’s not the biggest change with PE/allopatry. The main issue is that most evolution occurs in smaller populations. When Gould writes: “The sharp break in a local column accurately records what happened in that area through time.” The break isn’t due to sudden evolution or a “hopeful monster”, it’s because evolution was occurring gradually, but in a smaller peripheral population elsewhere. At some point the new species may migrate and replace the local column. Thus what the fossil record is recording is not a jump in evolution, but a migration event. goodusername

The way to defend yourself from the charge of quote mining is to show that the quotation you used was relevant and not taken out of context. You haven’t done that, but changed the subject.

That's right! You're guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. Mung

rvb8- You are not even wrong and you are totally clueless. Intelligent Design is NOT Anti-Evolution There aren't any universities looking into how natural selection or any other blind, mindless process could produce protein machines and no one knows if genetic changes can produce the anatomical and physiological transformations required for universal common descent. And given starting populations of prokaryotes yours doesn't even have a mechanism for getting beyond more populations of prokaryotes. And don't even get me started on the origin of living organisms. You are just another gullible bluffer- all mouth and no substance. Good luck with that ET

Florabama @ 40 - The way to defend yourself from the charge of quote mining is to show that the quotation you used was relevant and not taken out of context. You haven't done that, but changed the subject.

So, go on. Explain how an article explaining that the situation in about 1975 was not the same as it was in 1985 supports your statements about the situation now.

OK Oh, and at some point you'll also have to explain how changes in the fossil record mean that evolution didn't happen. The

1. The point of this thread is the book, Fossil Forensics which questions the Darwinian narrative on fossils. We on the same page so far?

OK

2. My first “quote mine” was a response to rvb8 who seems to think, as I assume you do, that indeed, the fossil record is filled with the millions of transitional forms that Darwin predicted would be found, but have not.

Unfortunately your quote mine does nothing of the sort. At best it says that there is stasis between transitions. But that doesn't rule out transitional forms (like, for example, early theropod dinosaurs, tiktaalik etc.). But had you actually read that piece, you would have found that it was saying that the state of palaeontology had improved since what was described. Hence, taking it out of context gives the wrong impression about what the author was communicating.

Not only did that not happen, but the opposite in fact became more and more apparent — the fossil record is a testament to non-evolution aka stasis.

With evolution in between. Please try to understand the punk eek argument - it's not that evolution doesn't happen, it's that it happens through changes that are too quick to be seen in the fossil record, and in between there are periods of stasis. (the evidence for this is equivocal: I guess because sometimes it happens, and at others not)

Just yesterday there was a article here about a beetle dating back to 300 mya with “modern” features. How did that happen? Even gradualists admit that stasis is the primary feature of the fossil record, and this over riding phenomenon of “stasis,” was the whole basis for Punk Eek which theorized that evolution happens so fast, it leaves little in the way of evidence.

Apart, of course, from all of those fossils that show some traits of older groups, and some of newer groups. How would you describe such fossils?

... 3. Here is the money quote from Wiki that counters to your “goal post moving” claim actually makes the point quite nicely: “Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.”

OK, so what accusation would you prefer? Goal post moving or attacking straw men? Now you're on about gradualism, not evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be gradual over geologic time - is there any reason why the tempo has to remain constant?

Gradualism is virtually non-existent in the fossil record and non-evolution is the dominate feature. While one might not call that evidence for a creator, it is certainly not evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn’t leave a lot of other options. One thing is certain, the fossil record has falsified Darwinism. Evolution may have happened, but not gradually.

Yep, goal post moving. Now you're explicitly attacking gradualism, and not evolution. That much seems clear. Bob O'H

RVB8- So are you saying you only accept biological evolution as fact , and from nothing then through the big bang and up to the point life popped into existence all this happen by some other mechanism other than an evolutionary one. Marfin

ET @43, essentially you're not wrong, as evolution explains how organisims change and evolve in the natural environment over time, not how it all started. But that area is now under serious and on going innovative research; abiogenesis. Serious universities, institutes, and private organisations, are all involved, and making remarkable progress, if you choose to follow it. As God is reduced to ever diminishing gaps S/He/It, may find the temperature in the kitchen rising.:) rvb8

Goodusername, If Gould saw a Darwinian pattern of transitional fossils in the fossil record they would have had no support for their P.E hypothesis , the fact that he said the extreme rarity of transitional fossils means what it says. And while P.E. does not mean a different mechanism of evolutionary change it does meant changes happen a lot faster and leave virtually no transitions in its wake. So you have a problem so called transitions are extremely rare this is a fact, then on the other hand you have to explain some type of hopeful monster mechanism to get species to change as rapidly as required which we know through molecular biology is nigh on impossible.So both theories, ideas, hypothesises call them what you will have serious if not fatal flaws. Marfin

Bob O`H -at 37 I will read this and respond Marfin

rvb8- In order to explain the fossils you first have to have a mechanism capable of producing the organisms that were fossilized. And you don’t have that ET

Fossils exist. Because they exist humans need to explain them; that is what we are, curious. (Although, by the nature of some of the comments here, that could be up for debate.) These fossils have a natural answer, or some other explanation. I hope we are all in agreement that we accept the natural answer? Captain Robert FitzRoy, of Darwin's Beagle, suggested God placed them in odd spots to test us. Heh:) Now, our collection of fossils is vast and growing; agree? Some of these fossls which are found in Antarctica, South America, Africa, and Australia bare similrities that are hard to explain unless these fauna, and flaura, were in close proximity: What is God up to? The best explanation for these flora, and fauna, is that they have had contact in a distant past, but have now changed so much from one another as to be new species. This is obviously because the seperating continents created many different new and various environments, creating huge selection pressure; the clinical motor of evolution, along with randomness. Tell tale evidence reamins however, suggesting a distant link. That's our very well supported premise, backed up by morphology, DNA, biogeography, and many other disciplines. Yours? God did it! Heh:) rvb8

Marfin,

Bob thats just waffle Gould and Eldridge`s theory stands in direct opposition to Darwin`s slow gradual change over time.They came up with their theory because there were no transitional fossils , only stasis, so the stasis and lack of slow gradual change over time had to be explained hence punctuated equilibrium.

Gould didn’t say that there aren’t transitionals, although they are rarer than one would expect if most evolution occurred via phyletic gradualism.  Gould actually wrote quite a few articles talking about transitional fossils, so he obviously believed that they exist, and in his words there were “more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy.”  What he says is that most intermediate fossils occur in the satellite populations of a species rather than the main body. Although punctuated equilibrium is often spoken of as a theory, to me it’s more correct to describe it as an observation: It’s a description of the fossil record, one that back’s Mayr’s allopatric theory. Mayr argued that speciation usually occurs in small satellite populations of a species, while the main body is relatively stable. Gould said that a study of paleontology showed that to be exactly the case. And that was Gould’s major contribution – he brought the theorists and paleontologists together. Up until then the two fields had pretty much ignored each other. The paleontologists weren’t keeping up with the latest findings from the theorists, while the theorists were ignoring the paleontologists because the theorists didn’t think fossils had anything to say about the mechanism of evolution. In the original paper on PE, Gould and Eldredge write that “the picture of punctuated equilibria is more in accord with the process of speciation as understood by modern evolutionists." In other words, they aren’t proposing a new process of evolution, they were saying that they have additional evidence in favor of the model of speciation that was already mainstream (allopatry). Also, Mayr’s model didn’t arise as a result of a lack of fossils, it came as a result of studying population dynamics. As mentioned, the theorists, like Mayr, were pretty much ignoring paleontology. (This is why Maynard Smith wrote to the paleontologists welcoming them back to the "high table," because they actually had something to contribute to their field.) As for the theory standing “in direct opposition to Darwin`s slow gradual change over time,” Darwin didn’t believe that evolution always occurred at the same rate: "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Although IIRC, Darwin believed that most evolution would occur in the largest populations of a species, while allopatry essentially says the opposite, so that might be the one thing Darwin would be surprised about. goodusername

Bob O'H, @ 38, speaking of moving goal posts -- I guess the "quote mining" dismissal didn't work, so you moved your own goal posts to uh, well, moving goal posts. All too tired and predictable. Let me spell it out for you. 1. The point of this thread is the book, Fossil Forensics which questions the Darwinian narrative on fossils. We on the same page so far? 2. My first "quote mine" was a response to rvb8 who seems to think, as I assume you do, that indeed, the fossil record is filled with the millions of transitional forms that Darwin predicted would be found, but have not. Not only did that not happen, but the opposite in fact became more and more apparent -- the fossil record is a testament to non-evolution aka stasis. Just yesterday there was a article here about a beetle dating back to 300 mya with "modern" features. How did that happen? Even gradualists admit that stasis is the primary feature of the fossil record, and this over riding phenomenon of "stasis," was the whole basis for Punk Eek which theorized that evolution happens so fast, it leaves little in the way of evidence. Of course, someone less committed to materialistic naturalism might say, "Hey maybe the fossil evidence for evolution isn't there because it didn't happen." Of course that never happens with evos. No matter how far fetched, they come up with a new "just so story," to explain the fact that the evidence does't fit the narrative. That worked for a long time but people have become hip to the fact that there's really nothing there. 3. Here is the money quote from Wiki that counters to your "goal post moving" claim actually makes the point quite nicely: "Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species." Gradualism is virtually non-existent in the fossil record and non-evolution is the dominate feature. While one might not call that evidence for a creator, it is certainly not evidence for Darwinian evolution, but it doesn't leave a lot of other options. One thing is certain, the fossil record has falsified Darwinism. Evolution may have happened, but not gradually. That much seems clear. Florabama

Bob O'H- If a student asked you how to test the claim that natural selection and other blind, mindless processes produced vision systems (Darwin, Mayr, Coyne, Dawkins, et al.) would you tell them no one knows, would you tell them to read books that don't have the answer or would you tell them to stay home? ET

Florabama - Ah, and now you're moving your goalposts, from evolution not happening to evolution being gradual. Bob O'H

Marfin @ 33 - there's a discussion of tests here. Bob O'H

Awhh, the old "quote mining" dismissal, Bob OH @ 10. You need some new material my friend. What would evos do without the "quote mining" dismissal? They might have to actually think for once, but as it stands, every time an evo is honest about evolutionary evidence and put its out there, if you can't deal with it, just call it "quote mining" and be on your merry way. No need to show that it is actually incorrect or out of context. How convenient for you? Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated that either quote is in any way incorrect or out of context. They both demonstrate that the primary feature of the fossil record is NON-EVOLUTION. If you are making the claim of misquoting, then the onus is on you to show that the quote is actually wrong. I know that Eldredge was a staunch evo even though he was honest about the fossil record. His and Gould's honesty forced them to resort to the "Poof Theory." No, evolution, no evolution, no evolution, no evolution (rinse and repeat a hundred million times) then POOF! Evolution happens and guess what? No need for thousands of transitional forms between claimed ancestors. And you guys claim that creationists believe by faith? Here's Wikipedia on Punk Eq. Notice the word "non-existent?" “Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that once species appear in the fossil record they will become stable, showing little evolutionary change for most of their geological history. This state is called stasis…In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing their theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's model of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.” Wikipedia, Punctuated equilibrium Florabama

...there are many books on evolution that you could read...

I've been reading one called The Evidence for Evolution. It's a real hoot! Mung

Bob O'H waffle? No way! Truth Will Set You Free

Bob O`H- Bob thats just waffle Gould and Eldridge`s theory stands in direct opposition to Darwin`s slow gradual change over time.They came up with their theory because there were no transitional fossils , only stasis, so the stasis and lack of slow gradual change over time had to be explained hence punctuated equilibrium. So is it slow gradual change over eons or short sharp bursts with no transitions , whats the test . Marfin

Bob O'H- I know that you cannot help me as it is clear you don't have a clue. Perhaps it is you who should go home as it is clear that you don't have anything to offer beyond equivocations and bluffs. ET

Does any know how natural selection produced finches? No. Evolutionary biology doesn't even know what determines that a finch develops. Dogs? Natural selection cannot account for dogs so why does Bob O'H even bring them up? Natural selection isn't anything like artificial selection- only artificial selection is actual selection whereas natural selection is an elimination of the less fit. ET

ET - I'm afraid I can't help you, then. Would it be impertinent of me to simply suggest you go home? Bob O'H

Marfin - read the Eldridge piece you quoted from. It's also worth noting that what may be gradual on one time scale can be sudden on another, e.g. think of the changes in beak size in Darwin's finches. Given how fast morphological changes can occur (think domestication of dogs too), it is perhaps not surprising that the fossil record can contain big changes with no intermediates observed. Bob O'H

Bob O'H, I Have read many books on evolution including Darwin and Coyne. Neither Darwin nor Coyne had any idea how to test the claim that natural selection is a designer mimic. BTW, do you realize that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution? The point being is all Coyne does is equivocate. And he actually thinks that Darwin's "evidence" for the evolution of the eye is actually scientific- it isn't. Darwin didn't present any evidence to support his claims and neither did Coyne. ET

Bob O`H - So Goulds quote about the EXTREME rarity of transitional fossils being the trade secret of palaeontology, hence his punctuated equilibrium theory does not sit in opposition to Darwins gradual change over time, of course it does. So Which theory is correct and once again how can you test the fossils to show which ones are transitional to show which theory is correct. Marfin

ET - there are many books on evolution that you could read (starting with Darwin's 1851 abstract!). Try Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True, for example. Bob O'H

Bob O'H:

Now let’s see if you can manage to find a quote from an article by an evolutionary biologist that does support your view.

Can you and yours manage to find any evidence to support your point of view? If so please present it. ET

rvb8:

Sure it is useful, you may actually try looking for the near limitless resources supporting the science of evolution.

How arte you defining "evolution"? There isn't any science that supports Darwin or Dawkins view of evolution, that is why I ask. ET

Marfin - even under punctuated equilibrium one can still get transitional fossils: they simply stick around in stasis before the next bout of morphological change. Bob O'H

RVB8-So correct me if I am wrong you are admitting there are no tests and that palaeontologists opinion is what is used to determine if a fossil is a bringing species.So why is the opinion of Gould and Eldridge different from the standard Darwinian model, and how do we test which is correct if both sides are giving their well educated scientific opinion. Marfin

Marfin, sometimes the opacity of your questions leaves me scratching my head. I think your question is; 'how do evolutionary paleontologists determine if a certain fossil is a link from one major clade to another, or transitional?' Is that fair? Well thy look at shared characteristics, bone structure etc. They look at the age of the fossil and determine its relationship to all other known fossils from that geologic period. I'm sure there are many other prcedures they carefully and professionally follow, to determine scientific authenticity; again what they do to determine a transitional fossil should be very easy to google, why haven't you tried? Tiktaalik, is such a beauty; truly remarkable encompassing features of fish, and amphibians in the one transitional organism. There are a vast many of these 'bridging' species that we have beautiful fossils for; let your index finger do the walking.:) rvb8

Florabama @ 10 - you might like to read the sources you quote mine - that piece doesn't say that "[t]he more fossils are pulled out of the ground, the more non-evolution is apparent". It actually doesn't discuss contemporary fossil finds at all (that's not the point of the article). Now let's see if you can manage to find a quote from an article by an evolutionary biologist that does support your view. Bob O'H

RVB8- The last time the fossil record came up I asked you a simple question, how do we test transitional fossils to know "yes these are transitional fossils".You never answered the question Bob OH said scientific study and opinion says they are transitional , but if you cannot put these studies and opinions to the test how can you ever determine there validity. So once again whats the test. Marfin

Belfast @16, 'It's no use referring someone to google, or sarcastically referring to the Book of Genesis.' Sure it is useful, you may actually try looking for the near limitless resources supporting the science of evolution. Also, I referred you first to wiki, and their extensive page, 'List of transitional fossils', then to 'talkorigins'. That site is literally bursting with good transitionals, and other evidence. I love the book of Genesis, and go back to its poetic style often. But like AIG, it is not a reference that is reliable. rvb8

Dio @15, I've read and immensely enjoyed, 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denesovyk', 'Cancer Ward', 'The First Circle', 'Lenin in Zuric', 'The Gulag Archipelego', 'August 1914', and assorted short stories. As Solzhenitsyn aged he became ever more the 'Great Russian', and cleaved ever closer to his growing faith; Orthodox of course. He was embraced by Putin (always worrying), and became somewhat closed to the idea of foreigners. So, as the great artist I agreed with his honesty, humanity and compassion. As he grew older and became more intolerant his writing also flagged. A great and courageous man, left somewhat lesser as his senility over road his more, and older, humanism. rvb8

Rvb@3. You said you were certain counter arguments existed to a book you haven't read, namely, fossil forensics. It's no use referring someone to google, or sarcastically referring to the book of Genesis. Belfast

rvb8 @12: "I am a Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn fan" Do you agree with everything Solzhenitsyn said or wrote? Is there anything you don't agree with him on? What is it? Dionisio

rvb8- Alleged transitional fossils do not say anything about a mechanism. And they are also lacking in the fossil record of marine invertebrates, which happen to comprise the vast majority of the fossil record. ET

Mung @6, heh:) Good one! rvb8

EugeneS, I am a Pasternak, and Solzhenitsyn fan, and have indeed read, in its entirety, that massive, brilliant, exposition, 'The Gulag Archipelego'. The evidence I suggest, 'absolutely certainly exists', is easy to find EugeneS. It is everywhere and not knowing where to find this easily accessible evidence points to blind, or willfull ignorance. Start with 'List of transitional fossils', at Wiki, then move on to 'talkorigins', simple google searches after that will flood you with info. On the other hand, you could read Genesis, Dembski, and AIG; up to you. rvb8

What's obvious is that people are looking for alternative models. This one may or may not be better, may or may not shed more light. But non-Darwinian evolution books continue to sell for a reason: People know something is wrong, whether or not they understand what it is. News

Bob O'H, @ 5, actually it's gotten worse for evolution. The more fossils are pulled out of the ground, the more non-evolution is apparent. “Stasis is a common (I would say the dominant) pattern of anatomical (non)change in the evolutionary history of species; …And, of course, given a concatenation of many separate ‘punctuated equilibria’ events all happening more or less at the same time, Darwin, armed with his particular conception of evolution through natural selection, must have felt totally helpless in the face of such a monstrous pattern. He could blame stasis on a poor geological record, but faced with paleontologists talking up Cuvierian patterns, Darwin simply cut and ran.” (Eldredge, Niles, “Confessions of a Darwinist,” http://www.vqronline.org/vqr-portfolio/confessions-darwinist Spring 2006.) Florabama

RVB "I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist; and probably counter solid evidence as well." When Boris Pasternak was ostracized in USSR for dissent, somebody in the press published a phrase that has since become a proverb: "I have not read his books, but I condemn them". EugeneS

The vast majority of fossils are of marine invertebrates- as is to be expected of the process. Yet in that vast majority we do not see evidence for universal common descent. Why is that? Also there isn't any teetering monolith that is evolutionary theory as there still isn't any scientific theory of evolution. ET

rvb8 @ 3: "I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist; and probably counter solid evidence as well." Fair statement, but remember that just about every person thinks this way, e.g. I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist, and probably solid counter evidence as well, against Darwinian evolution theory (of every stripe). We all think we have the best evidence! Truth Will Set You Free

The teetering monolith, that is evolutionary theory, suffers yet another broadside that eviscerates its long held doctrines.

hear! hear! Mung

Florabama - That quote (it's from the December 5th 1985 issue BTW) doesn't help you, as Kemp was arguing that that was the situation before (roughly) 1975, and that palaeontologists were being more rigorous in 1985. I think they've improved even further since then. Bob O'H

The fossil record is the greatest evidence that Darwinian evolution didn't happen, rvb8. “In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be ‘wrong.’ A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it? …As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly – the ‘punctuated equilibrium’ pattern of Eldredge and Gould.” (Kemp, Tom S., “A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67.) Florabama

The teetering monolith, that is evolutionary theory, suffers yet another broadside that eviscerates its long held doctrines. Can you tell me which fossils the good doctor sanguinely dismisses? I am absolutely certain that counter arguments exist; and probably counter solid evidence as well. rvb8

correction, "sink" ... ;-) DATCG

Will have to seek my teeth into it one day ;-) Thanks Johnny. Oh and Congrats to you and Dr. Bergman, et al. on #1! DATCG