Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Science

Science Uprising # 9: Unvarnished fossil record is bad news for Darwin

Spread the love

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.”

4 Replies to “Science Uprising # 9: Unvarnished fossil record is bad news for Darwin

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    in the video above, an University of Pittsburgh professor (an anthropologist) is being quoted:

    Jeffrey H. Schwartz:

    Most major groups of organisms … appear in the fossil record … full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution

    i had a closer look at this guy, i found another article at EurekAlert (mainstream magazine).
    This professor, a Darwinist publicly admits, that there are no fossils supporting Darwin’s gradual evolution:

    Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species

    In that book, Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don’t exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors–like extreme heat, cold, or crowding–years earlier.

    because Schwarz is a Darwinist, he had to made up another just-so-story to explain the sudden origin of major groups of species… this just-so-story, is even most absurd than Darwin’s gradual theory of evolution

    Environmental upheaval causes genes to mutate, and those altered genes remain in a recessive state, spreading silently through the population until offspring appear with two copies of the new mutation and change suddenly, seemingly appearing out of thin air. Those changes may be significant and beneficial (like teeth or limbs) or, more likely, kill the organism.

    i understand, when you are a scientist, you have to be sort of insane, but this is too much …

    and the article continues:

    Cell biologists know the answer: Cells don’t like to change and don’t do so easily. As Schwartz and Maresca explain: Cells in their ordinary states have suites of molecules– various kinds of proteins–whose jobs are to eliminate error that might get introduced and derail the functioning of their cell. For instance, some proteins work to keep the cell membrane intact. Other proteins act as chaperones, bringing molecules to their proper locations in the cell, and so on. In short, with that kind of protection from change, it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold. But extreme stress pushes cells beyond their capacity to produce protective proteins, and then mutation can occur.

    let me repeat this part:

    it is very difficult for mutations, of whatever kind, to gain a foothold

    But these guys BELIEVE, that this is how billions of species evolved :)))))))))

    like i said, these scientists are a sort of insane ….

    full article
    https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/581261

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    one more note regarding the new SU.9 video above:

    i like the moment when Gunther Bechly steps in, and sums up the sudden appearance of all major groups of species (to be honest, i was surprised how many … )

    Notice, that Bechly is quoting only mainstream/Darwinian papers !!!! Darwinists use these words, Bechly only sums up what was published by DARWINISTS

    Seversky, JVL, Chuck….any comments ?

    at 2:16

    https://youtu.be/20AGi50UNf0?t=136

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    Darwinists are delusional. They believe in something that is not true based on a false idea, which is one of the two definitions of delusion according to Merriam-Webster. They want to believe something that has no evidence so strongly that they convince themselves that the lack of evidence does not matter.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    In the video, starting at the 5:42 minute mark, they discuss the fact that Natural Selection itself, (Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame), was thrown under the bus by the mathematics of population genetics.

    Here is a video and article that goes into a bit more detail for what is termed the ‘waiting time problem’ for Darwinists in the mathematics of population genetics.

    “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

    The waiting time problem in a model hominin population – 2015 Sep 17
    John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner
    Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,,
    Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information.
    While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man.
    It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC4573302/

    Yet, with Natural Selection itself, (again Charles Darwin’s main claim to scientific fame), being thrown under the bus, some prominent Darwinists, (such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran), did not accept such a devastating finding to Darwin’s theory as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing, via neutral theory, that all the diversity of life on earth is the result of, basically, pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.

    As Austin Hughes stated ‘Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.’

    Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017
    Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....heory.html

    This is simply ludicrous.

    Even Richard Dawkins himself recognizes that, “It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance.’

    4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,
    So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.”
    Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video
    https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267

    To put it even more bluntly than Richard Dawkins did with his ‘absolutely inconceivable’ quote, Jay Homnick states, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”

    It’s Really Not Rocket Science – Granville Sewell – November 16, 2015
    Excerpt: “It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”
    – Jay Homnick – American Spectator 2005
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....00911.html

    And as David Berlinski once humorously quipped about the adoption of ‘neutral theory’, (i.e. the adoption of ‘random chance’ all by its lonesome), by prominent Darwinists, “By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.”

    Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial – David Berlinski – November 2011
    Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma (since Natural Selection no longer played a role), but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. “A critique of neo-Darwinism,” the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, “can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science.”
    By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.
    – per evolution news

    Moreover, even though Natural Selection itself is now known to be falsified by the mathematics of population genetics itself, the vast majority of Darwinists, even in the peer-reviewed literature such as ENCODE, still speak of Natural Selection as if it has not been falsified.

    “a pervasive problem in biology is the religious adherence to the idea that natural selection is solely responsible for every feature of biological diversity.,,,,
    Some have gone so far as to proclaim that virtually any nucleotide that is at least occasionally transcribed or bound to a protein must be maintained by selection (ENCODE Project Consortium 2012). Such arguments are inconsistent with substantial theory and empirical work suggesting that many aspects of gene and genome evolution are consequences of the limitations of natural selection (Kimura 1983; Lynch 2007). This raises the key question as to the level of biological organization above which selection can be safely assumed to be the only driving force of evolution.”
    – MIchael Lynch – 2019
    https://biodesign.asu.edu/sites/default/files/new_centers/Introduction.pdf

    The fact that ENCODE researchers themselves are speaking of Natural Selection as if it had not been falsified is very similar to as if a PhD in physics had never heard that General Relativity has now replaced Newton’s theory of Gravity.

    Thus, the fact that natural selection itself has been falsified, and yet many leading researchers themselves still speak of natural selection as if it has not been falsified, is yet another shining example of the unfalsifiable, pseudoscientific, even quasi-religious, nature of Darwin’s theory.

    Darwin’s theory is simply impervious to falsification.

    Moreover, besides the fact that Natural Selection itself has now been falsified as the supposed ‘designer substitute’, mutations themselves are now also shown, in the vast majority of instances, not to be random but to be directed,

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734315

    Moreover, besides the falsifications of Natural Selection and Random Mutations, there are many other instances where Darwin’s theory has been falsified. Falsifications that go to the core of the theory.,, Falsifications that Darwinists simply refuse to ever truly acknowledge and/or accept as falsifications of their theory,

    1. Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’.

    2. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    3. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    4. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever.

    5. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    6. Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    7. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    8. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.”

    9. Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    10. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    11. Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    12. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    13. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    14. Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Darwinism vs. Falsification – list and link to defence of each claim
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I6fT6ATY700Bsx2-JSFqL6l-rzXpMcZcZKZfYRS45h4/edit

    So again, Darwin’s theory is simply impervious to empirical falsification, and as such is to be classified as a unfalsifiable, even quasi-religious, pseudoscience that “does not speak about reality,,,

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.

Leave a Reply