Culture Darwinism Evolution Intelligent Design

Laszlo Bencze: Just another gratuitous use of the word “evolution” in the WSJ

Spread the love

Quoting an excerpt from the review of the book, Pump: A Natural History of the Heart by Bill Schutt, Bencze notes,


Reviewer John J. Ross writes in the Sept. 10 issue of the Wall Street Journal:

“The long necks of giraffes enable them to feast on high vegetation, but also create hydraulic headaches. When giraffes stoop to drink, blood may pool in their heads from the effects of gravity. Evolution has developed a twofold solution. Giraffes have sprouted a network of arteries in their necks that can expand to accommodate more blood when they bend over. As well, their jugular veins have acquired a muscular layer to squeeze blood back to their hearts, and an intricate series of valves to prevent backward flow.”

Let’s see, when exactly did evolution cause that network of arteries to “sprout” in the neck of the giraffe? Was it when the first adult giraffe decided to bend down to get a drink? Wouldn’t he have had a stroke before anything sprouted? Alright then. Did the arterial network sprout long before the giraffe’s long neck evolved? Sadly evolution can’t look ahead to provide things that will be useful in the future, so no go. But was there some point along the incremental growth of the giraffe’s neck from generation to generation when high blood pressure started bothering the poor giraffe? But why would a random mutation of the giraffe genome happen to pop up at this optimal time just when needed? And, by the way, could we please add to our order those muscular jugular veins and the intricate valves? Are we being too demanding? Should we be satisfied with a four foot neck and give overworked evolution a rest?

My point here is, it’s terribly easy to invoke evolution as the solution to any problem but far more difficult to detail how the solution happened in small incremental steps. As Neil Thomas points out in Taking Leave of Darwin (2021), such difficulties date back to 1859 when contemporary critics exposed the very same failings of the Darwinian program.

Nothing has changed. The worn out “just so” stories continue unabated as a kind of recitation of the evolution rosary.


Indeed. Though, to be fair, the actual Rosary is a contemplation exercise; it is not championed as a source of information about the history of life. 😉

27 Replies to “Laszlo Bencze: Just another gratuitous use of the word “evolution” in the WSJ

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    A major biology organization used the giraffe as proof of evolution by saying longer necked giraffes had greater survival potential. The editor failed to point out why this didn’t drive hundreds of other species to also have long necks or just being larger after all the only requirement is the mouth should be closer to the food source.

    This is just another example of smart people not thinking or not wanting to think because there is to much going on in life.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    There’s an external both-and involved.

    Let’s say giraffes started as elk-type animals, and began eating the lower branches of trees. Plants are smart and use epigenes for memory, so the trees would learn to raise their first branch above the elk. The elk->giraffe would mutate gradually and synchronously to expand its neck. (This move is plausible for standard evolution.) The trees would simultaneously move their lowest branch up, in a mutual escalation.

    Why did the trees stop BELOW the current height of a giraffe, leaving the lowest branch EDIBLE? Why didn’t they raise up another foot or two?

  3. 3
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig did a tremendous ID research paper on the giraffe years back that opened my eyes to the problem. The photo of a giraffe bending down to eat grass caused me to burst out laughing. Supposedly, evolution gave them longer necks because they couldn’t find any other food (as they lived alongside species that had no problem surviving and reproducing. Then, as can be expected, the evolutionary story changed to sex-selection. That seems to cover every ornament and beautiful feature in nature that cannot be explained as needed for nutrition and survival. This says nothing about how the physiology of the giraffe could undergo such massive change and stand out so uniquely in the environment (there’s no gradiation of neck sizes – just normal size and huge).

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    polistra

    Why did the trees stop BELOW the current height of a giraffe, leaving the lowest branch EDIBLE? Why didn’t they raise up another foot or two?

    Because if the leaves went up any higher there wouldn’t be enough of them to support the nutrition of the tree. So, evolution made it that the leaves went up then stopped, and the giraffe’s neck only had to grow to that height. But why didn’t the trees just keep getting taller? It should have been an arms-race at least to the edge of the stratosphere. All the trees stayed the same height but only the lower branches moved up – they could have kept all the branches but made the whole tree higher.
    Well, the oxygen thinned out so the tree and giraffe couldn’t breathe at that height. That stopped the arms-race.
    Also, if the trees were too tall, acorns would fall at too great a height and smash on the ground, thus no reproduction.
    Then the giraffes decided to eat the grass on the ground anyway but they had a big neck if ever needed for those leaves way up there.

  5. 5
    jerry says:

    Here is the video I was referring to. All the usual BS to explain giraffe necks.

    https://explorebiology.org/collections/genetics/mutations—relentless-drivers-of-evolution-and-disease

    Search for the phrase “video 1” and it will take you to the embedded video.

    If you had a polite conversation with this expert on evolution, what would he say to the inconsistencies of his remarks?

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Jerry

    If you had a polite conversation with this expert on evolution, what would he say to the inconsistencies of his remarks?

    It’s a good question. He’d have a blank look on his face, then be very puzzled – not by the inconsistencies but that someone would question the narrative. Then he’d say “that’s how evolution works, and that’s the science. We know this”.

    In the very same video, he explains that baby giraffes inherit the mutations for longer neck and the shorter neck giraffes die off. But the baby giraffes have short necks. In fact, their necks are shorter than those of the species that supposedly died off because they couldn’t eat the leaves on the trees. But the babies with short necks continue to eat and survive by eating vegetation lower on the ground, including bending down and eating grass which is just as nourishing as the leaves on the trees.
    The guy is lost and either just tells lies to himself or cannot put logical thoughts together. He’ll just blabber on in a video where he contradicts himself.
    He says nothing about the huge cost increase in having blood pumped all the way up the neck of the giraffe and why evolution would create that enormous structure just to get some leaves on trees. Giraffe populations were not big enough to be a threat to trees anyway. Why don’t all trees grow higher than any small animals can eat them? The animals cannot eat enough leaves to threaten a tree population which has abundant resources to continue to grow at the same height, and same leaf density. Many trees have branches at ground level. Other trees have branches that start at twice the height as the average animal, where there are no giraffes in existence.

  7. 7
    chuckdarwin says:

    #6 Silver Asiatic
    Its not like its a big mystery. Baby giraffes are born about 6 feet tall and are sustained the first year by their mother’s milk at which time they are generally tall enough to forage for themselves. They are fully mobile within an hour of birth. They will also forage for lower hanging leaves when available. The giraffe’s favorite food is acacia leaves, Acacia trees, just like giraffes start out small thus can provide forage for younger giraffes, but full grown acacias are only reachable by adult giraffes.
    Mystery solved….

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    This is great! The neck stretching is so . . Lamarckian.

    It also explains the origin of mouse-affes, mice with long necks that can reach the seeds at the tops of grasses and low bushes. It also explains the sharp teeth and piranha tactics of the cat-eating carni-mouse.

    In fact, evolution can explain anything, but predicts nothing successfully.

    -Q

  9. 9
    jerry says:

    Mystery solved

    But it zero to do with the giraffe’s body shape and evolution. The expert on evolution’s illustration is specious.

    As Stephen Blume would say, he’s an illusionist.

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    They will also forage for lower hanging leaves when available.

    When not available they eat something else while they’re considerably shorter than adults — and they survive quite well eating that something else – including grass that grows on the ground. The same is true for giraffe females – they’re shorter than males.
    So no, I wouldn’t call that a mystery solved. The evolutionary explanation doesn’t hold up.

    http://www.weloennig.de/Giraff.....duToit.pdf

    Introduction: the story which is commonly taught in high schools about the evolution of the long-
    necked giraffe by natural selection (feeding-competition-hypothesis) fails to explain, among other things, the size differences between males and females. Giraffe cows are up to 1.5 meters shorter than the giraffe bulls, not to mention the offspring. The wide migration range of the giraffe and the low heights of the most common plants in their diet likewise argue against the dominant selection hypothesis. Now to the main points: 1) The fossil „links“, which according to the theory should appear successively and replace each other, usually exist simultaneously for long periods of time. 2) Evolutionary derivations based on similarities rely on circular reasoning (to refer once more to Kuhn’s statement) 3) The giraffe has eight cervical vertebrae. Although the 8th vertebra displays almost all the characteristics of a neck vertebra, as an exception to the rule the first rib pair is attached there. 4) The origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation is,
    due to the many synorganized structures, extremely improbable. 5) Sexual selection also lacks a mutational basis and, what is more, is frequently in conflict with natural selection („head clubbing“ is probably „a consequence of a long neck and not a cause“). 6) In contrast to the thus-far proposed naturalistic hypotheses, the intelligent design theory is basically testable. 7) The long-necked giraffes possibly all belong to the same basic type inasmuch as 8) a gradual evolution from the short-necked to the long-necked giraffe is ruled out by the duplication of a neck vertebra and the loss of a thoracic vertebra. 9) Chance mutations are principally not sufficient to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe. 10) The intelligent design theory offers an adequate and satisfying solution to the problems and points to numerous „old“ and new research projects. 11)
    Mitchell and Skinner present a good analysis of the selectionist problem; however, their phylogenetic hypotheses presuppose the correctness of the synthetic evolutionary theory, and their claims of „intermediate rms“ are unproven.

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    If natural selection is off the table, how did the giraffe neck result?

  12. 12
    Silver Asiatic says:

    CD

    Intelligent design. That’s what W.E. Loenning concluded.

    Pages 15-17 outline his ID proposal for the origin of the giraffe.

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    If natural selection is off the table, how did the giraffe neck result?

    It’s off the table because why would it work for one species and not several. And then there is the problem of the blood supply system.

  14. 14
    Querius says:

    Jerry,

    Here’s where we get the hand waving with mustas, mightas, couldas, and mayhavs . . . you know “Darwinian science.”

    -Q

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Natural selection pertains to the DNA model. The DNA model is total nonsense with respect to the diversity of life.

  16. 16
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Question:How is possible that people still believe in darwinist evolution when 50 years ago was proven false?
    Answer: They kept unchanged all expired “evidences ” in schools and universities and kept producing atheists. I feel bad for them but they also have their fault .

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    CD: “If natural selection is off the table, how did the giraffe neck result?”

    Richard Sternberg: “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”

    “Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.”
    Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary
    – Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

  18. 18
    Seversky says:

    Ancient fossils show how giraffe got its long neck

    For years, there has been scant fossil evidence showing how the giraffe evolved to have such an admirably long neck. But now, the remains of a 7-million-year-old creature with a shorter neck provides proof that the giraffe’s iconic feature evolved in stages, lengthening over time, a new study finds.\\

    The researchers are calling the remains of this ancient beast true “transitional” fossils, not only closing an evolutionary gap in the rise of Earth’s tallest animals, but also providing concrete evidence of how one creature evolved into another.

    “We actually have an animal whose neck is intermediate [in length] — it’s a real missing link,” said Nikos Solounias, a professor of anatomy at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) College of Osteopathic Medicine and the lead researcher on the study.

    […]

    The finding is “very important,” said Donald Prothero, a research associate in vertebrate paleontology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, who was not involved with the new study.

    “Contrary to what some creationists say, we do have transitional fossils that show how one kind of animal evolved from another,” Prothero told Live Science. “We finally have fossils that show how giraffes got their long neck from short-necked ancestors, which most fossil giraffids were.”

    There’s actually more to be found if you Google on “giraffe fossil record” – if you are interested, that is.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky references a 2015 article claiming that Darwinists have ‘finally’ found the missing link for the supposed evolution of the giraffe’s long neck.

    But setting aside the gullibility of Darwinists to see transitional fossils in the shadows of every crushed bone fragment that is discovered, and looking for any actual evidence that Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining the Giraffe’s long neck, here is a 2021 article that shows that a ‘complete giraffe genome” failed to account for the giraffe’s long neck, “the very trait that most interested the early evolutionists.”

    The Gene of the Giraffe – May 2021
    Excerpt: A new complete giraffe genome is beginning to shed light on which view has more empirical support. Published by Chang Liu et al. in Science Advances (open access), it gives biologists a fresh start in discerning links between genotype and phenotype for this unique iconic animal.,,,
    Most summaries of the paper, including those in Science magazine and The Scientist, fail to account for the long neck — the very trait that most interested the early evolutionists.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/05/giraffe-genome-is-not-evolutionary/

    Thus Darwinists may very well have a fossil of “an animal whose neck is intermediate [in length]”, but Darwinists still have no evidence that Darwinian processes can produce long necks in the first place,

    As the following 2016 article stated, ,,, “a geneticist from the San Diego Zoo,, says, “Cavener has not yet proven that the genes he has identified are actually responsible for the giraffe’s body form.”

    Giraffe Genome Too Distinct for Evolution – May 18, 2016
    Excerpt: The giraffe’s heart, for example, must pump blood two meters straight up in order to provide an ample blood supply to its brain. This feat is possible because the giraffe’s heart has,, an unusually large left ventricle, and the species also has blood pressure that is twice as high as other mammals.,,,
    What good is a longer neck if the giraffe’s brain explodes every time it takes a drink because evolution didn’t fix the blood flow yet? What good is a speedy gallop if the giraffe passes out when it sees the predator coming and lifts its head too fast? ,,,
    ,,, a geneticist from the San Diego Zoo,, says, “Cavener has not yet proven that the genes he has identified are actually responsible for the giraffe’s body form.”
    http://crev.info/2016/05/giraffe-genome/

    , besides having no clue how the body form, and/or the long neck, of the giraffe can be arrived at by Darwinian processes in the first place, Darwinists can’t even prove that this supposed transitional fossil of “an animal whose neck is intermediate [in length]” was even related to giraffes in the first place.

    It is important to realize just how reliant Darwinists are on their unrestrained imaginations in interpreting the fossil record so that they can ‘force’ the fossil record to fit into their preconceived Darwinian narrative (no matter how badly the fossil record actually conflicts with their preconceived Darwinian narrative).

    As Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature, put it, “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    – Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature, “In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life”, 1999, pg. 113 & 117

    Here are a few notes on just how badly the fossil record actually conflicts with the imaginative ‘bedtime stories’ that are told by Darwinists about the fossil record.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs
    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.

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    – TS Kemp – Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    – Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.”
    – Harold Coffin – Zoologist – “A View Of Life”
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ADHEU2wrXmAC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180

  20. 20
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    Seversky
    Ancient fossils show how giraffe got its long neck

    :))) You are stuck in 18th century darwinist joke. Maybe you should inform yourself about Epigenetics. DNA darwinian model is false. In cell there is nothing RANDOM . All organisation in cell is full of cascades of purposeful processes. “Purposeful” is the word evolutionary biologists are terrified.

    Bornagain77
    the gullibility of Darwinists to see transitional fossils in the shadows of every crushed bone fragment that is discovered,

    :)) They have no choice…If a theory start with a magic word “Piltdown” ,will finish with “DownDown”…

    “a geneticist from the San Diego Zoo,, says, “Cavener has not yet proven that the genes he has identified are actually responsible for the giraffe’s body form.”

    There is not about genes.
    Funniest thing to see the contortion of mind of ideologists trying to spin a simple truth:
    Evolution Can Occur In Less Than 10 Years, Guppy Study Finds

  21. 21
    jerry says:

    There’s actually more to be found if you Google on “giraffe fossil record” – if you are interested, that is.

    If so, why the giraffe? Why not hundreds of other animals? A one off actually disproves the Darwinian mechanism.

    Also, fossils aren’t proof of a mechanism.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @19,
    Loved your post, especially this quote!

    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    – Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature, “In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life”, 1999, pg. 113 & 117

    Wow, that pretty much destroys the notion of “missing links” being discovered. These evolutionary lines seem pretty arbitrary based alone on “kind looks like.” And when there’s a complete mess, we’re told to believe in convergent evolution or living fossils.

    -Q

  23. 23
    vividbleau says:

    “but also providing concrete evidence of how one creature evolved into another.”

    It does no such thing

    “Also, fossils aren’t proof of a mechanism.”

    You beat me to the punch it’s about the mechanism that is in dispute. Also notice how they sneak in an assumption, they assume the very thing that have yet to prove.

    Vivid

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Yes Querius, given the Cambrian explosion by itself you would think that Darwinists would be far more reticent in claiming this or that fossil is undeniable proof for Darwinian gradualism.

    “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book, (‘Darwin’s Doubt’), is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.”
    -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013
    Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

    “The Cambrian Explosion occurred in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time. …not only the phylum Chordata itself, but also all its major divisions, arose within the Cambrian Explosion…. Contrary to Darwin’s expectation that new data would reveal gradualistic continuity with slow and steady expansion, all major discoveries of the past century have only heightened the massiveness and geological abruptness of this formative event…”
    (Gould, Nature, Vol.377, 26 10/95, p.682).

    Yes Querius, given the true nature of the fossil record from Cambrian explosion onwards, you would think Darwinists would be far more reticent in their claims about the fossil record, but alas, since Darwinists have no real time empirical evidence that it is even possible to change one species into another species,

    Scant search for the Maker – 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    ,,,since Darwinists have no real time empirical evidence that it is even possible to change one species into another species, then I guess ‘cherry picking’ fossils to distort the true nature of the fossil record is all that die-hard Darwinists have really got left to work with.

    Why Fossils Cannot Demonstrate Darwinian Evolution – William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells – July 6, 2016
    Excerpt: (1) Using the fossil evidence selectively. As in the case of therapsids, fossils more mammal-like can occur earlier in the fossil record than fossils that are less mammal-like. Yet to trace an evolutionary lineage on the basis of the fossil record requires that therapsids structurally more similar to mammals enter the history of life later than those that are structurally less similar. Evolution, after all, needs to follow time’s arrow and cannot have offspring giving birth to parents.
    A similar problem arises with geographical mismatches, in which fossil organisms that are supposedly next to each other in a structural progression are widely separated geographically. If the geographical separation is too great, how can one organism be ancestral to the other? Reproduction, after all, requires proximity — parents do not give birth to offspring at the other side of the globe.
    The problem of temporal and geographical mismatches is widespread. The Darwinist’s way around this problem is to assume that organisms that appear to enter the fossil record too late or too far away actually entered earlier or closer together. But such assumptions are entirely ad hoc and ignore the actual fossil evidence.
    This illustrates a larger problem — what scientists call “cherry-picking.” Given a sufficiently large data set, it’s possible to find salient patterns simply by trying out enough different ways of combining items of data. Many structural progressions found in the fossil record are nothing more than “cherries” — in other words, they are statistical artifacts that result from trying out enough different ways of combining fossil data. The sheer quantity of fossil data is immense. Simply by combining and recombining these data in enough different ways and by attending to sufficiently many distinct features of structural similarity, it is possible to generate reasonably long fossil progressions arranged by structural similarity.,,,
    “If similar structures can evolve and re-evolve repeatedly, then fossils cannot distinguish convergence from common ancestry, and tracing evolutionary lineages in the fossil record becomes impossible.” ,,,
    According to Gee, we call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” He concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story — amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”5
    In short, fossils cannot demonstrate Darwinian evolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02974.html

    “Cherry picking’ fossils to distort the true nature of the fossil record is about as intellectually dishonest as a person can be scientifically speaking, but, then again, what are a few intellectual lies to yourself and to others when you have rejected God and have thus rejected objective morality?

    Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
    Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
    The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
    https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

    Given their rejection of objective morality, via their rejection of God, I guess we should be surprised whenever a Darwinist happens to be honest towards the evidence. Given his atheistic worldview, and his rejection of objective morality, the Darwinist simply has no reason to be honest towards the evidence if he doesn’t want to be.

  25. 25
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Part 2 of Loenning’s paper gives much more detail:

    http://www.weloennig.de/Giraff.....nglish.pdf

    99.99% of all mammal species possess exactly seven neck vertebrae. The giraffe, however, has 8 vertebrae. It’s not possible for a single mutation to add a new vertebrae without multiple additional changes. The idea that a fossil find “proves” the evolution of the giraffe (10 ft tall, 6 ft neck) from a fossil (5ft tall, 3 ft neck) is absurd. It says nothing about the multiple changes required. According to Loenning, Dawkins cites a “macro mutation” which Loenning compares to a “materialistic miracle”.

    The naïvete with which Dawkins discusses the possibility of the origin of the long-necked giraffe by a macromutation (although he believes in a gradual evolution through many small steps…) shows that he has very little understanding of the deep biological problems associated with this question (the highly complex anatomical constitution of the 8th neck vertebra should, from what has been said above, be added to the other characteristics) and should perhaps be fit into the category of a „materialistic miracle belief.

    In the first part of this work we have already discussed in detail that it is not
    sufficient to simply elongate, in a single step, the neck vertebrae of a short-necked
    giraffe to those of the long-necked giraffe (and Giraffa camelopardalis is ‘finished’),
    but rather that numerous characters must be changed in a coordinated way (here again
    19arises the synorganization (coadaptation) problem that is so difficult to explain for
    both the gradualist and the saltationist), a problem which includes, among many other
    tasks, the need for an entire series of precisely tuned mutations to give rise to the
    many interdependent anatomical structures just for the origin and development of the
    8th neck vertebra.

  26. 26
    Silver Asiatic says:

    BA77

    Why Fossils Cannot Demonstrate Darwinian Evolution

    Claims of convergent evolution are proof of this. Genetic similarity does not match the supposed morphological similarity.

  27. 27
    hnorman42 says:

    So a network of arteries sprouted. Is sprouting related to strong emergence?

Leave a Reply