| previous page: quotations 1-8 | Statements 17-32 | next page: quotation 9 |
| 17 | As an example, if the theory of evolution were true, then the fossil records would ALWAYS show a smooth transition from one life form to another, | No it wouldn't. This simply shows ignorance of evolutionary theory. | argument from ignorance |
| 18 | such that it would be difficult to tell where invertebrates ended, and vertebrates began. Though this is NOT always the case. | It is hard to tell where
invertebrates end and vertebrates begin! Just ask any conodont worker. See: http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/geoscience/conodont.html |
FALSE |
| 19 | Instead, fully formed life forms have been discovered to suddenly jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere, with illogical gaps before them where their ancestors should be. | No they don't. This is a very outdated view of the fossil record. | FALSE |
| 20 | Many evolutionists do not dispute this fact, while others look the other way. | It's not a fact. Nobody 'looks the other way'. The premise is outdated and flawed. | Bollocks! |
| Darwin's View On The Gaps In The Fossil Records | |||
| 21 | Darwin was aware of the gaps in the fossil records though he felt there was more to his theory which explained this. | And gave a good analysis of why this should be so. | TRUE |
| 22 | Since human beings can breed living things for special characteristics (i.e. breed sheep for heavier wool, breed horses for extra strength, and roses for color and size), Darwin reasoned that if man could bring about small improvements in living things in such a short period, then nature could surely bring about similar tiny improvements over millions of years in living cells, which could allow them to evolve all the way up to human beings given enough time. In other words, Darwin felt plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, and given a time span of say, a hundred million years, it could close all of the gaps in the fossil records. | Fine so far | TRUE |
| 23 | Next we will see that this is not the case. | Hmm... | |
| Breeding Limitations | |||
| 24 | While Darwin expressed plants and animals could vary to an unlimited degree, breeders were discovering otherwise. | No they were not. Breeders were selecting for characters which make their breeds economically superior. They were not trying to push the limits of what is possible. | FALSE |
| 25 | They were discovering that even though it was possible to breed a sheep with shorter legs, it was NOT possible to breed a sheep with legs of a rat, or breed a plum the size of a watermelon, or breed a horse with tusks. | Nor would evolutionary
theory suggest that they should be able to. In any case, how about a
1458 pound pumpkin? See:http://pumpkinnook.com/giants/record.htm That's a greater increase in size from a normal pumpkin than a plum to a watermelon. |
FALSE |
| 26 | Each living thing was found to have built in limitations which prevent it from moving too far from the norm. Excessive breeding for a characteristic was also found to either result in a reverse back toward a given average after many generations, | This applies in the case of the greatly accelerated evolution, selecting for a limited number of specific features which is what breeders are trying to do. Natural selection is a much more subtle mechanism, and takes place over much longer time scales. | irrelevant |
| 27 | or it resulted in dead end species which were unable to reproduce (like the mule which is a cross between a horse and donkey). | Mules are not the result of selective breeding, but hybridisation. | argument from ignorance |
| 28 | To date no breeding experiments have ever resulted in major, new traits resulting in a completely new species. | Depends on how you define a species. | FALSE |
| 29 | Darwin had no answer for this limitation and simply assumed there variations could continue to an unlimited degree without evidence. And that is still the case to this day. | Yes he did have an answer! Just read 'The Origin of the Species'! | FALSE |
| 30 | Some evolutionists like to refer to speciation via breeding in plants as proof for evolution. | No they don't. They offer it as supporting evidence, which is what it is. | FALSE |
| 31 | Though breeding experiments in animals and humans has always run into a limitations and has NEVER been shown to produce a brand new species. | Depends on what you mean by a new species. | FALSE |
| 32 | So breeding cannot be used as proof for evolution. | It gives very good supporting evidence | irrelevant |
| Some quotes regarding breeding can be seen here. | |||
| previous page: quotations 1-8 | Statements 17-32 | next page: quotation 9 |
";