|
Bettawrekonize -> RE: Stasis as criticism of evolution (2/15/2008 10:22:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Darwin predicted that there should be a smooth transition throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
Where does Darwin predict this?
Certainly, Darwin recognized that "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
But he goes on to discuss reasons why this might be the case. In the discussion, he concludes at one point of the relevant geological processes that: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
He did not predict "a smooth transition throughout the fossil record."
You are correct. My previous post should have been in reference to the degree of stasis and how that is incompatible with darwinism. Thanks for correcting me.
It should read,
quote:
Darwin predicted that gradualism should be the case throughout the fossil record if UCD is true. This makes sense (which is exactly why Darwin predicted it at the time) and his prediction was false. If UCD is true we would expect the fossil record to reflect its truth. It doesn't. That's a problem for UCD).
quote:
It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
BTW, does anyone have any quotes from Darwin himself indicating that a static fossil record is incompatible with his hypothesis (or theory, if you would like to call it that)?
I guess the problem here is that, in order to go from molecule to man there would have to have to been significant anatomical changes (since bacteria and men are anatomically very different) and those changes should be reflected throughout the fossil record. If they are not (which seems to be the case) that would seem to be a huge problem for UCD (because this is not what would be expected if UCD is true). One could speculate punctuated equilibrium, but this has never been observed to occur and further demonstrates the unfalsifiable nature of UCD (if no stasis, gradualism. If stasis, punctuated equilibrium).
I also found this interesting
quote:
The common knowledge of a profession often goes unrecorded in technical literature for two reasons: one need not preach commonplaces to the initiated; and one should not attempt to inform the uninitiated in publications they do not read.
...
Thus, once gradualism emerged as the expected pattern for documenting evolution - with an evident implication that the fossil record's dominant signal of stasis and abrupt replacement can only be a sign of evidentiary poverty - paleontologist became cowed or puzzled, and even less likely to showcase their primary datum.
...
All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result.
...
In his defense, actually Gould refers to problems that result for science in general when this kind of selection against publishing occurs in any field of study. But in this case, the results for humanity are very serious indeed.
http://www.blavatsky.net/darwin/stasis_in_fossil_record.htm
So basically, it seems UCD and other naturalistic philosophies are anti - scientific. If anything contradicts their desired result (naturalism), the secular community and their promoted peer review journals would tend to dishonestly censor them. We should try to inhibit this level of dishonesty and until the secular community starts acting honestly and ethically (instead of dishonestly replacing science with naturalism) on the subject matter, I see no reason to believe anything they tell me on the subject matter of origins. We need an honest, complete set of evidence to work with, not one that is dishonestly censored and distorted to replace science with tax funded naturalism.
|
|
|
|