Evolving and Revolving

[Edie Lindsey]

The same people who have evolved the Theory of Global Warming into the Fact of Global Warming into the Fact of Climate Change, have made it sacrilegious to suggest that the Theory of Evolution does not explain the origin of every living thing.  But it doesn't, and this recent column by Ann Coulter delves into the recent foray into this topic by Rick Perry's detractors.

 

Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.
After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his  Wicked Witch of the West​ mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"

That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.

There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.

Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.

The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.

Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.

We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)

But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.")

If you get your news from the American news media, it will come as a surprise to learn that when Darwin first published "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, his most virulent opponents were not fundamentalist Christians, but paleontologists.

Unlike high school biology teachers lying to your children about evolution, Darwin was at least aware of what the fossil record ought to show if his theory were correct. He said there should be "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

But far from showing gradual change with a species slowly developing novel characteristics and eventually becoming another species, as Darwin hypothesized, the fossil record showed vast numbers of new species suddenly appearing out of nowhere, remaining largely unchanged for millions of years, and then disappearing.

Darwin's response was to say: Start looking! He blamed a fossil record that contradicted his theory on the "extreme imperfection of the geological record."

One hundred and fifty years later, that record is a lot more complete. We now have fossils for about a quarter of a million species.

But things have only gotten worse for Darwin.

Thirty years ago (before it was illegal to question Darwinism), Dr. David Raup, a geologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, said that despite the vast expansion of the fossil record: "The situation hasn't changed much."

To the contrary, fossil discoveries since Darwin's time have forced paleontologists to take back evidence of evolution. "Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record," Raup said, "such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

The scant fossil record in Darwin's time had simply been arranged to show a Darwinian progression, but as more fossils were discovered, the true sequence turned out not to be Darwinian at all.

And yet, more than a century later, Darwin's groupies haven't evolved a better argument for the lack of fossil evidence.

To explain away the explosion of plants and animals during the Cambrian Period more than 500 million years ago, Darwiniacs asserted -- without evidence -- that there must have been soft-bodied creatures evolving like mad before then, but left no fossil record because of their squishy little microscopic bodies.

Then in 1984, "the dog ate our fossils" excuse collapsed, too. In a discovery The  New York Times​ called "among the most spectacular in this century," Chinese paleontologists discovered fossils just preceding the Cambrian era.

Despite being soft-bodied microscopic creatures -- precisely the sort of animal the evolution cult claimed wouldn't fossilize and therefore deprived them of crucial evidence -- it turned out fossilization was not merely possible in the pre-Cambrian era, but positively ideal.

And yet the only thing paleontologists found there were a few worms. For 3 billion years, nothing but bacteria and worms, and then suddenly nearly all the phyla of animal life appeared within a narrow band of five million to 10 million years.

Even the eye simply materializes, fully formed, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record.

Jan Bergstrom, a paleontologist who examined the Chinese fossils, said the Cambrian Period was not "evolution," it was "a revolution."

So the Darwiniacs pretended they missed the newspaper that day.

Intelligent design scientists look at the evidence and develop their theories; Darwinists start with a theory and then rearrange the evidence.

These aren't scientists. They are religious fanatics for whom evolution must be true so that they can explain to themselves why they are here, without God. (It's an accident!)

Any evidence contradicting the primitive religion of Darwinism -- including, for example, the entire fossil record -- they explain away with non-scientific excuses like "the dog ate our fossils."

 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45893

[Sweater Cows!]

If a person looks back to the 1960's and 70's we can see pics of where the snow was up to the roofs or doortops of homes, and people had to dig a tunnel to get in or out of there door. In my lifetime I can't remeber seeing this. Therefore I do believe in global warming.

 

I don't believe in evolution or intelligent design by 'geeoohdee'. I am more into the FSM than the gee ooh dee.

 

I think we are growing in agar in a petry dish in some aliens microbiology lab.

[XLFD]

It is pretty much self-evident that the theory of evolution has gaps in it, so that it could never reliably be used as a catchall theory of the origin of the large variety of organisms we have had and the existing fossil records. 

It takes even more faith to think the theory covers the origin of life, than a Creationist's faith in believing there was an act of God.  The difference: most Creationists will admit that their belief is on faith and not on rigorous science, whereas most Evolutionists will not for their beliefs. 

[Willy]

It's all a silly arguement anyway. Noone really knows how we got here, who we are, where we're going or even where we are. It's fun to speculate and ponder our origin and reason for existance but it's truly an exercise in futility. Thus the reasons for theories and religion.

[Sweater Cows!]

An exercise in futillity? YES I have come to the conclusion that it just does not matter to me, if I find out someday, great, if not oh well. And, in the meantime it is fun to speculate, but remember, nobody get out alive so don't take it to seriously(oops, unless your religious, lol). But if I am wrong about the Aliens I still have time according to the bible to be  a jesus follower after the rapture and be saved. That being the only case where it would matter.

 

I really respect some of the religious people(the ones that aren't hypocrites), it seems they are women usually that i meet and they have the best skin(even if old and wrinkly), they have a glow about them. I have met only very few, but they are the ones who work for there churches and go about with real faith and humility and do for others all they can, whether as non-profits or as missions. Does anyone know the sort I am talking about, those ones that truly care about people and try to help people find joy and happiness in life? have you ever met one? I have met a few but not many, maybe 3 or 4 in many years of life.