Intelligent Design

More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors

Spread the love

The problem with evolution is that, because it is always wrong, being wrong doesn’t count against it. In fact, evolution is so wrong that even its errors have errors. And whereas a normal theory with so many flubs would have long since been discarded, since evolution is true from the start it can’t be discarded. So instead evolutionists spend their time trying to determine just how wrong they are. One of evolution’s many problem areas is with the so-called evolutionary tree. Evolutionists compare the species to figure out which branch and twig they go on, but it never works out very well. One of the problems is that the fossil comparisons are inconsistent with the molecular comparisons. This has been a problem for more than half of a century—ever since we had molecular data—and it is just getting worse. Now a new massive study shows that not only is the problem worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently. This means that the standard strategy of blaming it on the fossil data won’t work very well this time:  Read more

2 Replies to “More Fossil-Molecule Contradictions: Now Even the Errors Have Errors

  1. 1
    Querius says:

    Great article!

    “Our results suggest that, for Aves, discord between molecular divergence estimates and the fossil record is pervasive across clades and of consistently higher magnitude for younger clades. […] Unexpectedly, relative disparity is substantially higher for crown than for stem divergences. This observation is difficult to attribute to fossil preservation biases.

    But from the Fundamentalist Darwinians, we get direct denial, rationalization, obfuscation, and ad hominems. The irony is that with all the new genomic data that’s becoming available, you’d think they’d jump at the chance to start from scratch using modern tools. With their resources, I’d be on it like a duck on a snail! Instead, they cherry pick data to keep a worn-out, 19th century idea on life support.

    It’s a pity.

    -Q

  2. 2
    ScuzzaMan says:

    One of the problems is that the fossil comparisons are inconsistent with the molecular comparisons. This has been a problem for more than half of a century—ever since we had molecular data—and it is just getting worse. Now a new massive study shows that not only is the problem worse than previously thought, but the errors increase with those species that are supposed to have evolved more recently. This means that the standard strategy of blaming it on the fossil data won’t work very well this time.

    Perhaps, but far more importantly, far more pertinently, what this means is that the “fossil record” is a record of something other than evolution, darwinian or otherwise.

    And that is a message that not only the doctrinaire darwinists need to heed; it applies equally well to the doctrinaire common-descenters amongst the ID community.

    The “fossil record” IS a record, but not a record of descent. Until ‘we’ stop thinking about it as one, ‘we’ will continue to be wrong.

    Because wrong premises can only ever lead to wrong conclusions, by the very nature of logic. The longer ‘we’ insist on clinging to this false premise, the longer ‘we’ will continue to form false conclusions.

    When every conclusion you reach turns out to be wrong, it is time to at least consider checking your premises.

Leave a Reply