Results for: transitional fossils Search Results
Family Filter:
"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp - Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 "Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360. "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts - Paleontologist "The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists" – Stephen Jay Gould - Harvard Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
3 Feb 2010
Share Video

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined? But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties?" Charles Darwin - Origin Of Species Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video ***********/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: *******www.fossil-museum****/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Fossil Record - No Transitional Fossils - video ***********/watch?v=i0ZlcrumE2s AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST: Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms. *******bcb705.blogspot****/2007/03/amber-looking-glass-into-past_23.html The Paradox of the "Ancient" Bacterium Which Contains "Modern" Protein-Coding Genes: Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels. Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; *******mbe.oxfordjournals****/cgi/content/full/19/9/1637 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
15 Jan 2010
Share Video

READ DESCRIPTION: Please watch the video in its entirety- I know it starts off slow and technical. I discuss the actual, oft unmentioned reason every scientist accepts evolution. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Special thanks to Greenman3610 for providing the audio track in the background. If you're remotely interested in global warming, subscribing to him is not an option, its a requirement. -The C14 tree/etc example is just to show the strengths of independent methods. Embryology video: ***********/watch?v=LnTGYdasDu0 Transitional Fossils: ***********/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM Sources: Gilbert, S. F. (1997) Developmental Biology. Fifth edition. Sinauer Associates. Carroll, R. L. (1988) Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York, W. H. Freeman and Co. Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, Mass., Sinauer Associates. Gould, S. J. (1990) "An earful of jaw." Natural History 3: 12-23. Kardong, K. V. (2002) Vertebrates: Comparative Anatomy, Function, Evolution. Third ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Rubin, G. M. et al. (2000) "Comparative Genomics of the Eukaryotes." Science 287: 2204-2218. [PubMed] Schmid, K. J., and Tautz, D. (1997) "A screen for fast evolving genes from Drosophila." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94: 9746-9750. *******www.pnas****/cgi/content/full/94/18/9746 Sereno, P. C. (1999) "The Evolution of Dinosaurs." Science 284: 2137-2147. [PubMed] Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed] Thornhill, R. H., and Ussery, D. W. (2000) "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution." Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 111-116. [PubMed] Voet, D., and Voet, J. (1995) Biochemistry. New York, John Wiley and Sons. Williams, G. C. (1992) Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges. New York, Oxford University Press. Scarpulla, R. C., and Nye, S. H. (1986) "Functional expression of rat cytochrome c in Saccharomyces Cerevisiae." Proc Natl Acad Sci 83: 6352-6. [PubMed] Shimamura, M., et al. (1997) "Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates." Nature 388: 666. [PubMed] Smit, A. F. A. (1996) "The origin of interspersed repeats in the human genome." Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 6: 743-748. [PubMed] Stewart, C. B. and Disotell, T. R. (1998) "Primate evolution - in and out of Africa." Current Biology 8: R582-588. [PubMed] Svensson, A. C., N. Setterblad, et al. (1995) "Primate DRB genes from the DR3 and DR8 haplotypes contain ERV9 LTR elements at identical positions." Immunogenetics 41: 74. [PubMed] Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Retroviruses and primate evolution." BioEssays 22: 161-171. [PubMed]
26 Feb 2010
Share Video

Falsehoods In Textbooks - Ten Icons of Evolution - overview - Dr. Jonathan Wells - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050609/falsehoods_in_textbooks_icons_of_evolution_jonathan_wells/ Dr. Wells writes a article defending his criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here: Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution" *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#more Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." *******arjournals.annualreviews****/doi/abs/10.1146/ Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. My Question: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere acc^id^ent--when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? NCSE's Answer: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to 'justify materialistic claims' is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution. My Response in Outline: (a) The field of human origins is actually one of the most contentious in biology, because individual researchers interpret the relatively meager evidence on the basis of different biases and preconceptions. (b) Darwin's followers--like Darwin himself--agree that humans evolved from ape-like animals. This theoretical consensus, however, owes less to the evidence than to materialistic philosophy. (c) One consequence of this philosophy is the claim that there has been no purpose or direction in the history of life. Many biology textbooks promote this view and use drawings of ape-like humans to convince students that we are no exception to it. My Response in Detail: (a) Contrary the NCSE's claim of 'considerable agreement,' the field of human origins (paleoanthropology) is actually one of the most contentious in biology. According to experts in the field, this is because of subjective interpretations of the relatively meager evidence. Berkeley evolutionary biologist F. Clark Howell wrote in 1996: 'There is no encompassing theory of [human] evolution... Alas, there never really has been.' According to Howell, the field is characterized by 'narrative treatments' based on little evidence, so 'it is probably true that an encompassing scenario' of human evolution 'is beyond our grasp, now if not forever.' Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Geoffrey Clark was equally pessimistic in 1997: 'Scientists have been trying to arrive at a consensus about modern human origins for more than a century. Why haven't they been successful?' Clark is convinced it is because paleoanthropologists proceed from different 'biases, preconceptions and assumptions.' And in 1999 Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, pointed out that all the evidence for human evolution 'between about 10 and 5 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box.' According to Gee, the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is 'a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.' 21 (b) Of course, Darwins followers--like Darwin himself--agree that humans evolved from ape-like animals. This agreement, however, represents a theoretical consensus. It does not emerge from the evidence--not the meager evidence for human origins, nor (as we have seen) the evidence from four-winged fruit flies, Darwin's finches, peppered moths, vertebrate embryos, comparative anatomy, or the fossil record of the animal phyla. On what, then, is this theoretical consensus based? (c) It seems to me that it is based largely on a philosophical commitment--specifically, a commitment to materialism, the philosophical doctrine that the physical universe is the only reality; God, spirit and mind are illusions. One consequence of this doctrine is the claim that there has been no purpose or direction in the history of life. According to the NCSE, the notion that textbooks use drawings of supposed human ancestors to justify this claim is 'ludicrous.' Yet Guttman's Biology (1999) tells students that living things have developed 'just by chance,' by a roll of the 'cosmic dice,' through 'the action of random evolutionary forces.' Miller and Levine's Biology (5th Edition, 2000) asserts that 'evolution works without plan or purpose,' so 'evolution is random and undirected.' Purves, Sadava, Orians and Heller's Life: The Science of Biology (6th Edition, 2001) states that 'evolution is not directed toward a final goal or state.' And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness. Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations as well as interviews with famous Darwinists to persuade students that human beings are merely accidental by-products of purposeless natural processes. Raven and Johnson's Biology (5th Edition, 1999) depicts a speculative reconstruction of the famous 'Lucy' fossil after treating students to an interview with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, who tells them: 'Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.' Campbell, Reece and Mitchell's Biology (5th Edition, 1999) uses drawings of reconstructed fossil skulls rather than whole animals, and features an interview with Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, who declares: 'Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, the apparent design of life'--including human beings, who 'are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species.' Our existence was not planned, however, because natural selection is 'totally blind to the future'--the 'blind watchmaker.' For further reading, students are referred to Dawkins's book of that name, in which he writes: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' 22 *******www.evolutionnews****/2008/08/inherit_the_spin_the_ncse_answ.html#more The Truth About Human Origins: Excerpt: "It is practically impossible to determine which "family tree" (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard's wife) has proposed still another.,," ***********/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage ******* Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video *******www.metacafe****/watch/4050681/stephen_meyer_functional_proteins_and_information_for_body_plans/ The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. *******www.evolutionnews****/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html#more Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. ******* Bottom Line? The supposed naturalistic evolution of man from apes is IMPOSSIBLE!!! Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
20 Jul 2011
Share Video

Dean Kenyon, who was a leading Origin Of Life researcher and the primary college textbook author on the subject, admitted after years of extensive research: "We have not the slightest chance for the chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest self-replicating molecule". THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient "living" fossils that have not changed for millions of years: *******www.fossil-museum****/fossils/?page=0&limit=30 Ancient Fossils That Evolutionists Don't Want You To See - video ***********/watch?v=eLzqDLZoufQ Fossil Record - No Transitional Fossils - video ***********/watch?v=i0ZlcrumE2s "The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find' over and over again' not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another." Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager "A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants - instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God." Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki "There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." Professor of paleontology - Glasgow University, T. Neville George Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
18 Jan 2010
Share Video

The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest *******darwins-god.blogspot****/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. For a quick overview here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)- 6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life 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 mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, 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. - 14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - Last, but certainly not least, as a Christian I would be very remiss if I failed to ask you to accept the free gift of eternal life from the living God who created this universe and all life in it. In fact, almighty God has made a very clear path for us "fallen human adults" to completely reconcile with Him so we may be able to stand before Him in heaven. We do this by humbly accepting what He has done for us through Christ on the cross so that we may be able to stand in the glory of the presence of almighty God in heaven (For our God is an all-consuming fire - Hebrews 12:29). In fact by accepting Christ into your heart, you will be cleansed spotless of your sins in the presence of almighty God. So how about it, Will you accept this priceless gift of Jesus Christ into your heart today so you may able to receive the priceless gift of eternal life in heaven? --- Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.' John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. ***********/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9 Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis *******lettherebelight-77.blogspot****/
16 Feb 2011
Share Video