Science Disproves Evolution [trollville]

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Science Disproves Evolution [trollville]

Two-Celled Life?

 

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

 

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

 

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

 

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

 

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

 


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote: The

Visual_Paradox wrote:

 

The author of that webpage apparently does not intend to engage in any research. One can verify the accuracy of the data provided for the Williston Basin in Williston, North Dakota by Glenn Morton by consulting the peer-review literature, books used by the petroleum industry, and the U.S. Geological Survey. One can verify the accuracy of his interpretation of the stratigraphic data by comparing the cited facts with known geophysical principles. The geologic column, as found in the Williston Basin, thoroughly refutes the notion of a worldwide flood.

The cretaceous chalk does not serve as evidence of a global food. One, it extended far but only covered portions of the land masses. Two, stratigraphy of other regions provides evidence of nonsubmergence. Three, the chalk developed for thousands of years over several million years ago, not for a year just a few thousand years ago. Four, humans did not live in the cretaceous. Five, such a mass drowning of organisms of all vertebrate species would reveal simultaneous population bottlenecks in genetic analyses, which doesn't exist. Six, Genesis mentions an olive tree, which could not survive submerged in saltwater for a year, clearly indicating a process of myth-making. Seven, literary parallels exist between Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh, which preceded it in a nearby location, thus clearly showing exaggeration of early legends. The Epic of Gilgamesh stems from a local river flooding in Shurrapak around 2700 BCE involving King Ziasudra who placed his belongings and animals on a barge. The historiographical evidence reveals cultural exaggeration across thousands of years from a local river flood to the worldwide flood of Genesis. Eight, the historiographical evidence accords with the geophysical Williston Basin and Shurrupak evidence, which both accord with the genetic evidence, while all of it contradicts the competing explanation of a worldwide flood as told in Genesis, so that could only be maintained by an aggressively gullible person.
 

 

You jump to a lot of unsupported conclusions. I won't go through the whole list, but I would like to touch on a few:

 

“the chalk developed for thousands of years over several million years ago, not for a year just a few thousand years ago.”

 

How do you know?

 

“Genesis mentions an olive tree, which could not survive submerged in saltwater for a year, clearly indicating a process of myth-making.”

 

Could it clearly indicate God was still in the creation business after the flood?

 

“The historiographical evidence reveals cultural exaggeration across thousands of years from a local river flood to the worldwide flood of Genesis.”

 

Could it reveal changes in memory of the actual event of the worldwide flood as people moved away geographically and in time, so that the basics were preserved in hundreds of cultures worldwide but not the details, which are only found in the Holy Bible?

 

“all of it contradicts the competing explanation of a worldwide flood as told in Genesis”

 

If you accept all of the unsupported assumptions. Also, how do you explain the existence of seashell fossils on the tops of all mountain ranges?


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Rapid Burial  

Rapid Burial

 

Fossils all over the world show evidence of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish (a), show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (b) that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. (Normally, dead animals and plants quickly decompose.) The presence of fossilized remains of many other animals, buried in mass graves and lying in twisted and contorted positions, suggests violent and rapid burials over large areas (c). These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly—not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments that formed today’s rocks were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood.  The fossil record is not evidence of slow change (d).

 

a. Thousands of jellyfish, many bigger than a dinner plate, are found in at least seven different horizons of coarse-grained, abrasive sandstone in Wisconsin. [See James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, No. 2, February 2002, pp. 147–150.]

 

Coarse grains slowly covering a jellyfish would allow atmospheric oxygen to migrate in and produce rapid decay. Burial in clay or mud would better shield an organism from decay. If coarse-grain sand buried these jellyfish in a storm, turbulence and abrasion by the sand grains would tear and destroy the jellyfish.

 

Charles Darwin recognized the problem of finding fossilized soft-bodied organisms such as jellyfish.  He wrote:

 

“No organism wholly soft can be preserved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 330.

 

Once again, a prediction of evolution is seen to be wrong.

 

Preston Cloud and Martin F. Glaessner, “The Ediacarian Period and System: Metazoa Inherit the Earth,” Science, Vol. 217, 27 August 1982, pp. 783–792. [See also the cover of that issue.]

 

Martin F. Glaessner, “Pre-Cambrian Animals,” Scientific American, Vol. 204, March 1961, pp. 72–78.

 

b. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717.

 

“... preconditions for the preservation of soft-bodied faunas: rapid burial of fossils in undisturbed sediment; deposition in an environment free from the usual agents of immediate destruction—primarily oxygen and other promoters of decay, and the full range of organisms, from bacteria to large scavengers, that quickly reduce most carcasses to oblivion in nearly all earthly environments; and minimal disruption by the later ravages of heat, pressure, fracturing, and erosion....But the very conditions that promote preservation also decree that few organisms, if any, make their natural homes in such places.” Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–62.

 

c. Presse Grayloise, “Very Like a Whale,” The Illustrated London News, 1856, p. 116.

 

Sunderland, pp. 111–114.

 

David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22.

 

Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225.

 

d. Harold G. Coffin, Origin By Design (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1983), pp. 30–40.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes21.html#wp1012558


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Parallel Strata

    

Parallel Strata

 

The earth’s sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their later burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Because parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth’s surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate—not over long periods of time.

 

Fossils crossing two or more sedimentary layers (strata) are called poly- (many) strate (strata) fossils. [Fossil trees are found worldwide crossing two or more strata]…Had burial been slow, the treetops would have decayed. Obviously, the trees could not have grown up through the strata without sunlight and air. The only alternative is rapid burial. Some polystrate trees are upside down, which could occur in a large flood. Soon after Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, scientists saw trees being buried in a similar way in the lake-bottom sediments of Spirit Lake. Polystrate tree trunks are found worldwide.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences26.html#wp1009156

 

 


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fossil Gaps

Fossil Gaps

 

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record (a).

 

a. “But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 163.

 

“...the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be 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 the theory [of evolution].”  Ibid., p. 323.

 

Darwin then explained that he thought that these gaps existed because of the “imperfection of the geologic record.” Early Darwinians expected the gaps would be filled as fossil exploration continued. Most paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fossil Gaps 2a

Fossil Gaps 2a

 

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

 

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

 

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

 

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

 

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fossil Gaps 3a

Fossil Gaps 3a

 

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:

 

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019

 

 


willm
Posts: 5
Joined: 2009-02-25
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Pahu,Would

zarathustra wrote:

Pahu,

Would you mind saying what level of education you have received in biology to speak so authoritatively on the matter?

And...do you intend to simply copy and paste responses you've already made in this forum?

 

That is my home forum.  17 pages is nothing.  There is another forum with this same topic, where he is up to 184 pages. 

I've found several other forums where he posts the exact same shit using the exact same title.  I personally believe that he is a professional troll.  Either paid by or under the direction of some creationist agency.

Do a simple search for pahu and forum and you will find them. 

 

On the upside, the search for this info led me to this forum.  Nice to be here. Smiling

 

 


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fossil Gaps 4a

Fossil Gaps 4a

 

“But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren’t there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group or that.” Hitching, p. 19.

 

“There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
We must all bow down to Pahu

We must all bow down to Pahu the Gaper and his great cut and paste skills!!!

The only gap I can see, is the one between a certain posters ears...


Pahu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Fossil Gaps 5a

Fossil Gaps 5a

 

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

 

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.” Ibid., p. 23.

 

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019