Author:
Pahu
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 11:26:59 12/10/08 Wed
THE ORIGIN OF NEW LIFE FORMS 2
A major problem for evolution is the analogy of selective breeding being used to prove that natural processes did it all because it contains a great deal of intelligent intervention that is overlooked in the theory. Breeders manipulate according to an intelligent plan to produce specific developments. Informationally speaking, this is going from a state of complexity in the DNA code to a higher, or at least more specific, state, of complexity. It is like changing the sentence, "She had brown hair," to the more complex statement, "Her tresses were auburn and shown in the sun." This increase in information coded into the DNA requires intelligence just as surely as the original coding to produce life did. Indeed, if Darwin's analogy proves anything, it shows the need for intelligent intervention to produce new life forms. Again, the principle of uniformity leads us to this conclusion once it is realized that we are working within origin science, not operation science.
But what of the fossil evidence that has been so widely proclaimed? Darwin recognized this as a problem as well and wrote in The Origin of Species, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? 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." [Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: John Murray, 1859), p. 280] In the 130 years since Darwin wrote, the situation has only become worse for his theory. Noted Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has written, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" in Natural History May 1977, p. 14]
Eldredge and Tattersall agree, saying:
“Expectation colored perception to such an extent that the most obvious single fact about biological evolution—non-change—has seldom, if ever, been incorporated into anyone's scientific notions of how life actually evolves. If ever there was a myth, it is that evolution is a process of constant change.” [Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 8]
What does the fossil record suggest? Evolutionists like Gould now support what creationists like Agassiz, Gish, and others have said all along:
“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
“1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
“2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’" [Gould, op. cit. pp. 13-14]
[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 