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.”
in the video above, an University of Pittsburgh professor (an anthropologist) is being quoted:
Jeffrey H. Schwartz:
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:
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
i understand, when you are a scientist, you have to be sort of insane, but this is too much …
and the article continues:
let me repeat this part:
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
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
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.
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.
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.’
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.’
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.”
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.”
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.
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,
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,
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,,,
Verse: