|
If
Evolution Didn't Occur Gradually, Maybe It Occurred Rapidly? |
| 45 |
Another evolutionist
from Harvard named Stephen Gould next proposed a possibility on how
evolution could be taking place which he felt may also explain the gaps
in the fossil records. He proclaimed that maybe evolution does not occur
gradually, but maybe rapidly. |
'Rapidly' in geological
terms is still very, very slow in terms measured against human
life-spans. And he didn't 'proclaim', he proposed. |
misleading |
| 46 |
He proposed a scheme
called "punctuated equilibrium" where he mentioned that maybe
it was possible that large populations of species live unchanged for
millions of years, then for some unknown reason some of the species
become isolated, and by unknown means evolve into new species. Thus this
new isolated species would appear suddenly in the fossil records, which
would explain the gap before them. |
Not 'for some unknown
reason', or 'by some unknown means'. There are many possible mechanisms
for geographical isolation - we can observe them at work in the world
today - and natural selection takes care of the rest. |
FALSE |
| 47 |
Since there were no
other explanations which could logically explain the gap in the fossil
records, many evolutionists accepted the "punctuated equilibrium"
theory initially. |
There are plenty of other
explanations; incompleteness of the record is the most obvious. |
FALSE |
|
Punctuated
Equilibrium Directly Opposes Laws Of Genetics |
What are the 'Laws of
Genetics'? |
Utter bollocks! |
| 48 |
Notice that Gould's
proposed "punctuated equilibrium" was filled with "what-if's"
and was purely speculation |
Any scientific theory
starts as speculation. Punctuated Equilibrium was not 'pure
speculation'. It was (and is) a hypothesis well supported by evidence. |
FALSE |
| 49 |
Creationists immediately
made it clear to all that no one had ever seen rapid evolvement of a
species and there is no proof of such a thing ever occurring. |
Creationists are
completely irrelevant. They are not scientists and do not offer
scientific arguments. There is plenty of evidence for rapidly evolving
species. |
FALSE |
| 50 |
In addition, "punctuated
equilibrium" opposes all known rules of genetics. |
What are the 'Laws of
Genetics', and how does punctuated equilibrium 'oppose them'? It
proposes no special evolutionary mechanism. |
unsupported assertion |
| 51 |
For example, the genetic
apparatus of a lizard is devoted 100% to producing another lizard. |
Not so. The 'genetic
apparatus of a lizard' is devoted to making as many copies of itself as
possible. It doesn't even know what a lizard is, let alone want to
produce one. |
FALSE |
| 52 |
The idea that such an
indescribably complex, finely tuned, highly integrated, amazingly stable
genetic apparatus involving hundreds of thousands of interdependent
genes could be drastically altered and rapidly reintegrated in such a
way that a new organism is actually an improvement over the preceding
organism is contrary to all known laws of genetics and is pure
speculation and groundless. |
All the evidence we have
shows that it happens. |
FALSE |
| 53 |
It's interesting to see
that creationists have always stated that gaps in the fossil records are
proof of special creation, and now the evolutionists, with the new "punctuated
equilibrium" theory, were starting to say that gaps in the fossil
records were evidence of evolution! |
The gaps are not produced
as evidence for evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is one of a number of
theories to explain the gaps. Bearing in mind that there is no theory of
creation, what creationists state is hardly relevant. |
FALSE |
| 54 |
In a nutshell, up to
this point there is no proof of gradual evolution (over long periods of
time), and rapid or sudden evolution is indistinguishable from special
creation! |
Utter nonsense |
Bollocks! |
|
"Natural
Selection" Is a Mindless Process |
| 55 |
As part of the theory of
evolution, Darwin also proposed that each time any organism evolves,
every stage must be an immediate advantage to the species because "natural
selection" is a mindless process with no idea where it is going, so
it cannot plan or conceive an end goal. |
True |
TRUE |
| 56 |
Creationists immediately
argued that how could many organs of the human body, such as the
incredibly complicated human eye, develop bit by bit by chance mutation,
not knowing it was going to be an eye? |
Creationists had nothing
to do with it. Darwin himself discussed the evolution of the
human eye, which you would know if you read 'The Origin of the Species'. |
Utter Bollocks! |
| 57 |
Of what use would a half
developed eye be? How could each step have been an advantage until the
entire eye was complete? |
Which is why Darwin went
on to describe from examples in existing animals the finely graded steps
leading from a patch of a few light-sensitive cells to the human eye. |
Empty rhetoric |
| 58 |
How about other parts of
a body such as a kidney or jaw? How about the wings of a bird? What good
is a half of a jaw or half of a wing? We could give endless examples
here. |
The evolutionary steps
which led to such structures is pretty well known |
Empty rhetoric |
|
Some quotes regarding
the "natural selection" theory can be seen here. |
|
|
