Intelligent Design

Breaking News!!!! Wesley R. Elsberry Solves 154 Year-Old Riddle of the Fossil Record; Awaits Call from Nobel Committee

Spread the love

In the course of a single comment about my exchange with Nick Matzke, Elsberry has solved an enigma that has puzzled Darwinists all the way back to Darwin himself. In Origin of Species Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory. He wrote:

But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. 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 my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin thought after further exploration the fossil record would ultimately show the “finely graduated organic chain” his theory predicted. 154 years later – up until Elsberry’s dramatic find on this very day – paleontoligists have been completely stymied in their efforts to find that chain.

In a stunning development Elsberry comes along at antievolution.org and writes:

Arrington bases his intransigence on a very specific claim of his

“Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”

Set aside for the moment that this quotation is not of me but of famous Darwinists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall.

Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.

Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

The fact that Elsberry think’s he is refuting my claim when he is really refuting the claim of two world-famous Darwinists is a detail, a mere quibble, hardly worth mentioning compared to Elsberry’s gigantic, epic, groundbreaking, enormously important find.

Elsberry continues.

I think it is possible to show that the expectation Darwin had for finding transitional fossils comports well with the actual situation. In fact, I have shown that.

Elsberry links to this article to go where he has “shown that.”

There you have it folks!  I will go and check that link while you call your travel agents and book your tickets to Stockholm. Be right back . . .

 

 

OK, I’m back. You might want to cancel those tickets.

In the article he links Elsberry says that we don’t need no steenkin’ “finely graduated organic chain.” No sir. Three transitional fossils out of 250,000 are good enough for him.

Well, as Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, never mind.

6 Replies to “Breaking News!!!! Wesley R. Elsberry Solves 154 Year-Old Riddle of the Fossil Record; Awaits Call from Nobel Committee

  1. 1
    humbled says:

    What a tool

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Arrington:

    Darwin thought after further exploration the fossil record would ultimately show the “finely graduated organic chain” his theory predicted. 154 years later – up until Elsberry’s dramatic find on this very day – paleontoligists have been completely stymied in their efforts to find that chain.

    LOL. The Elsberry Supremacy.

  3. 3
    Mapou says:

    Wesley Elberry:

    I think that many of the quoted people had accepted a view of what Darwin expected that isn’t actually reflective of what Darwin wrote.

    Wow. The Wesleyan Heresy?

    😀

  4. 4
    Roy says:

    Mr Arrington,

    You wrote that:

    Darwin thought after further exploration the fossil record would ultimately show the “finely graduated organic chain” his theory predicted.

    This is false.

    In the text that follows the section you keep quoting, Darwin went on to explain why geology doesn’t
    reveal finely graduated chains. He discussed erosion, dissolution of skeletal remains, conditions required for fossil accumulation and the rarity of preservation. And at the end of that discussion, he wrote this:

    If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life.

    Darwin did not think further exploration of the fossil record would uncover “finely graduated organic chain[s]”. He wrote that it wouldn’t.

    I do not think you have deliberately misrepresented Darwin’s ideas. I think it is more likely that you either didn’t comprehend, or didn’t read, the rest of that chapter. But the fact remains that you have used Darwin’s words in support of a position diametrically opposed to the position he actually held.

    Roy

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    The Darwinist argument according to which a fine graduation is rarely seen in the fossil record because it is incomplete, is just wishful thinking, if not an outright lie. Why would this “imperfection” be identical all over the surface of the earth? One would expect that the completeness of various fossil deposits from distant regions would overlap one another, thereby creating a continuous record. This is not what is observed. Everywhere we look, we observe prolonged stasis followed by the rapid onset of major phyla followed by more stasis.

    The fossil record is orders of magnitude more accurate than the Darwinists are claiming. But then again, Darwinists do not have a reputation for honesty so there is no surprise there.

  6. 6
    tjguy says:

    This is an example of how evolutionists often deal with the many problems of their paradigm. They either ignore it or pretend it is solved by their current insufficient propositions. They know their ideas do not offer a real explanation, but it’s all they have so they put on a confident face and pretend the problem has been solved — UNTIL they come up with a better story.

    When they think they have a “better” answer, then they are willing to finally admit that it had been an unsolved problem dogging evolutionists all along.

    So then you will see headlines along this line:

    “Darwin’s Enigma that Puzzled Scientists for years is finally solved” or something to that effect.

    Only then do you find out it really was a problem after all. Elberry is just trying to cover up this serious problem until they hopefully come up with a real solution.

Leave a Reply