Fossils, we are told, demonstrate the Truth of Darwinism as the history of life. But that’s only if you don’t look too closely. Science Uprising #9 looks too closely:
Not so fast, as paleontologist Günter Bechly, geologist Casey Luskin, biologist Richard Sternberg, and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer explain. The masked narrator of Science Uprising series asks, “Just how bad is the fossil record for Darwin’s theory?” The answer is that, with all the jumps and explosions, the abrupt transitions and rapid developments of form where Darwin and his followers expected only slow change, the fossil record is nothing less than awful for evolution. It’s simply not what Darwinian theory would have expected. As University of Pittsburgh anthologist and evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz has put it, “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”David Klinghoffer, “New Science Uprising Episode Asks, “Just How Bad Is the Fossil Record for Darwin’s Theory?”” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 17, 2021)
Schwartz better watch his step. Asking too many questions… gets people Cancelled.
You may also wish to read: Five more species of bacteria use alternate genetic codes
At The Scientist: “The genetic code has been set in stone for 3 billion years,” study coauthor Yekaterina Shulgina, a Harvard University graduate student in systems biology, tells The Scientist. “The fact that some organisms have found a way to change it is really fascinating to me. Changing the genetic code requires changing ancient, important molecules like tRNAs that are so fundamental to how biology works.”